Let us now retrace our steps, and see how strong a case is made out.

1. Twelve facts in the life of Mr. Paine shown to be the same as those in Junius.

2. An apparent contradiction proven to be a parallel fact.

3. They both represent Quaker principles.

4. They have the same views of conscience.

5. Both believe in the divine justice of retribution.

6. Both believe in future punishment.

7. Both have the same views of prayer.

8. Both have the same dislike to the word infidel.

9. Both have the same opinion of Jesus of Nazareth.

10. Both have the same views of Christianity.

11. Both use the term Christian the same.

12. Both had a special dislike to Methodism.

13. Both were inveterate enemies to priestcraft.

14. Both made a wide difference between piety and morality.

15. Both had the same views of the Catholic faith.

16. Both ridiculed "Peter."

17. Both affirmed that they did not persecute for religious opinion.

18. Both hated a narrow system in politics or religion.

19. Both had the same views of "religion."

20. Both had the same views of superstition.

21. Both had the same views of atheism.

22. Both had the same views of providence.

23. Both had the same views of the theater.

24. Both detested gamblers and gambling.

25. Both had the same opinion of the English Constitution.

26. Both were extremely cautious.

27. Both were extremely politic.

28. Both loved method.

29. Both evinced the same kind of method in writing.

30. Both had the same views of the origin of military governments.

31. Both had the same views of party politics.

32. Neither would take part in party politics.

33. Both had the same pride of character.

34. Both had the same views of the English army.

35. Both loved free thought.

36. Both thought alike of suspicion.

37. Both expressed the same views of antagonism.

38. Both placed personal interest above strict moral right.

39. Both thought alike of oaths.

40. They had the same opinion of courts and courtiers.

41. They considered the termination of the Seven Years' War a distinguished period, and dated the misfortunes and establishment of tyranny in England from that period.

42. They both had the same opinion of Lord North.

43. Both had the same opinion of Lord Mansfield.

44. Both had the same views of precedent.

45. Both had the same opinion of lawyers.

46. Both had the same views of the cause of America.

47. Both had the same views of the minority in England.

48. And herein the same views of Lord Chatham.

49. Both traced the rights of man back to their origin.

50. Both express themselves alike in regard to laws in general.

51. Both express themselves alike in regard to the game law.

52. Both declare law to be king.

53. They had the same predilections in regard to politics.

54. They were neither of them partisans.

55. They were both practical.

56. Both often appealed to experience and the evidence of facts.

57. Both assert the mind becomes what it contemplates.

58. Both were deeply read in the "history of the human heart."

59. Both delight in charging bastardy.

60. Secretiveness was a ruling characteristic.

61. Both had the same opinion of moderate men.

62. They were both enthusiasts.

63. Both were too proud to be vain or to flatter.

64. Both placed too high an estimate on the judgment of the masses.

65. Both were excessively hopeful.

66. Personal honor unparalleled in history.

67. Both express themselves alike in regard to avarice and the miser.

68. Both often assert that "language fails."

69. Both have the same method of argumentation, and hereunder many parallels are given.70. Both have the same style, and hereunder many parallels are given.

71. More than sixty parallel expressions and figures of speech are given.

72. They both use the same kind of figures the most frequently.

73. They use the figure in the same manner, and usually one at the close of an article.

74. Both use the same facts and figure to illustrate national honor.

75. The same rythm in style is common to both.

76. The same alliteration.

77. The same method of bringing the subject into one view.

78. The wandering from the point and mentioning the fact.

79. The same threat, command, and warning.

80. The same method of ridicule and satire.

81. The same use of diminutives.

82. The same sacrifice of grammar to conciseness.

83. The same majesty and grandeur of style.

84. Common Sense parallels with Junius, in many ways, and hereunder more than forty examples, which to repeat would be to rewrite them.

85. They were both revolutionists.

86. They both dedicated their life to the same object: to remove some wrong, to do mankind some good.

87. They both attacked the King of England and his ministry in the same spirit and language.

88. Both had the same opinion of bribery at elections.89. They were both political reformers, following the same principle without pay and above party.

In the above argument I have given nearly three hundred parallel facts and characteristics, many of them of such a nature that it would be at variance with nature itself to suppose them to belong to different men. But I have also searched for a solitary fact which would in the least render Mr. Paine and Junius incompatible, and have found it not. This is a task I hope some reader, who has some means and ample time, will devote a year or two to investigate. My case is much stronger than I hoped even to make it. I have by no means given all the facts and parallels, but where one would answer, I put it in the place of several on the same subject. I have labored to condense—not to expand; I have, therefore, commented but little, and reasoned scarcely any. There is no reasoning which is superior to the simple declaration of facts. It should be the office of the writer to present facts to A reasoning world. The literary world has had enough of the whirlwind of words; it wants a deluge of facts. Then each mind will take care of itself, if worth preserving. To this end I subjoin Lord Macaulay's five reasons why Sir Philip Francis was Junius:

"Was he the author of the Letters of Junius? Our own firm belief is that he was. The external evidence is, we think, such as would support a verdict in a civil—nay, in a criminal proceeding. The handwriting of Junius is the very peculiar handwriting of Francis, slightly disguised. As to the position, pursuits, and connections of Junius, the following are the most important facts, which can be considered as clearly proved: First, that he was acquainted with the technical forms of the Secretary of State's office; secondly, that he was intimately acquainted with the business of the War Office; thirdly, that he, during the year 1770, attended debates in the House of Lords, and took notes of speeches—particularly of the speeches of Lord Chatham; fourthly, that he bitterly resented the appointment of Mr. Chamier to the place of Deputy Secretary at War; fifthly, that he was bound by some strong tie to the first Lord Holland.... Now here are five marks, all of which ought to be found in Junius. They are all five found in Francis. We do not believe that more than two of them can be found in any other person whatever. If this argument does not settle the question, there is an end of all reasoning on circumstantial evidence." [In answer to this, see appendix.]

If that kind and amount of evidence would hang a man in the time of Macaulay, the times have so changed that it takes far stronger evidence to hang men now than then. That kind of evidence is absolutely worthless for two reasons: first, the facts alleged in the separate counts are neither of them necessary to the production of Junius; and, secondly, they would prove nothing if they were, for they might be common to a hundred men, and that they were not would be matter of fact to prove. Even Macaulay makes this rest on his own belief. "We do not believe," he says, "that more than two of them can be found in any other person whatever." But the fact is, they are absolutely "imaginary," and not at all necessary.

"The internal evidence," he says, "seems to point in the same way." First, he acknowledges that Francis, as a writer, is inferior to Junius, but not "decidedly," and then he goes on to say: "One of the strongest reasons for believing that Francis was Junius, is the moral resemblance between the two men." Macaulay now sets up a character for Junius, the most of which is not to be found in Junius, and says it is like Francis. It is thus he imposes on the credulity of the ignorant. But I give his words, that the reader may investigate for himself:

"It is not difficult, from the letters which, under various signatures, are known to have been written by Junius, and from his dealings with Woodfall and others, to form a tolerable correct notion of his character." I call the attention of the reader to the above sentence, and have emphasized the word "notion," and the phrase "various signatures." Of the former, I would remark that a notion of one's character falls far short of a judgment, and in a criticism is not only trifling, but contemptible. In regard to "various signatures," I will let Junius himself answer: "The encouragement given to a multitude of spurious, mangled publications of the 'Letters of Junius,' persuades me that a complete edition, corrected and improved by the author, will be favorably received."—Preface. In this volume his signature is Junius, and occasionally, when he wishes to explain the meaning, or defend the principle, he puts forward Philo Junius, but never without this cause. I now proceed to give the character which Macaulay has picked up—I know not where:

"He was clearly a man not destitute of real patriotism and magnanimity—a man whose vices were not of a sordid kind. But he must also have been a man in the highest degree arrogant and insolent—a man prone to malevolence, and prone to the error of mistaking his malevolence for public virtue. 'Doest thou well to be angry?' was the question asked in olden time of the Hebrew prophet, and he answered: 'I do well.' This was evidently the temper of Junius, and to this cause we attribute the savage cruelty which disgraces several of his Letters. No man is so merciless as he who, under a strong self-delusion, confounds his antipathies with his duties. It may be added that Junius, though allied with the democratic party by common enmities, was the very opposite of a democratic politician. While attacking individuals with a ferocity which perpetually violated all the laws of literary warfare, he regarded the most defective parts of the old constitution with a respect amounting to pedantry; pleaded the cause of Old Saurum with fervor, and contemptuously told the capitalists of Manchester and Leeds that, if they wanted votes, they might buy land and become freeholders of Lancashire and Yorkshire. All this, we believe, might stand, with scarcely any change, for a character of Philip Francis."

Thus much Macaulay. Where he got the above character I am unable to tell, unless out of his own imagination. Before I answer it, I will give another perversion of the truth. Dr. Goodrich concludes his article on Junius as follows: "Junius continued his labors, with various ability, but with little success, nearly two year's longer; until, in the month of January, 1772, the king remarked to a friend in confidence: 'Junius is known, and will write no more.' Such proved to be the fact. His last performance was dated January 21, 1772, three years to a day from his first letter to the printer of the Public Advertiser. Within a few months, Sir Philip Francis was appointed to one of the highest stations of profit and trust in India, at a distance of fifteen thousand miles from the seat of English politics!"

The "few months" in the above sentence is just a year and a half after the king "remarked in confidence," etc. But Francis did not go to India for more than two and a half years after. In March, 1772, he resigned his clerkship in the war department, in consequence of a quarrel with Lord Barrington, the new Minister at War. He then left England, and traveled on the continent the remainder of the year; in the June following he was appointed one of the Council of Bengal, with a salary of £10,000, and in the summer of 1774 went to India. That fall Thomas Paine came to America. It is thus the phrase "a few months," artfully put into a sentence in connection with the supposed fact that the king had found out Junius, and had bribed him to stop writing, would mislead the mind, and pervert a reasonable conclusion. This is a trick of the pen, and to which no honorable mind will descend. The fact is, Francis would never have been thought of as Junius, had he not been an intimate friend and schoolmate of Mr. Woodfall's.

But the above argument, summed up by Lord Macaulay, is the strongest on record for any man till now. I was not aware of its weakness till now. I supposed there was a plausible argument at least. To be answered, it needs only to be appended to this. I speak without vanity, for the argument is nature's own, not mine. I will honor it, therefore, with a rebuttal from Junius himself. In Letter 44 he says: "I may quit the service, but it would be absurd to suspect me of desertion. The reputation of these papers is an honorable pledge for my attachment to the people. To sacrifice a respected character, and to renounce the esteem of society, requires more than Mr. Wedderburn's resolution; and though in him it was rather a profession than a desertion of his principles (I speak tenderly of this gentleman, for, when treachery is in question, I think we should make allowances for a Scotchman), yet we have seen him in the House of Commons, overwhelmed with confusion, and almost bereft of his faculties. But in truth, sir, I have left no room for an accommodation with the piety of St. James'. My offenses are not to be redeemed by recantation or repentance: on one side, our warmest patriots would disclaim me as a burthen to their honest ambition; on the other, the vilest prostitution, if Junius could descend to it, would lose its natural merit and influence in the cabinet, and treachery be no longer a recommendation to the royal favor."

There is not, among the dregs or scummings of human nature, a character so false and vile as to write that, and then do as Francis did, or do as the king of England did, if he believed him to be Junius. Nature rebels at such an argument, founded on the facts of the case. It is by a species of subterfuge, or literary legerdemain, exhibiting some facts and hiding others, calling the attention to some trifling thing, and then concealing the truth of the matter, is all that has ever rendered the argument in favor of Francis of any consequence with the public. There is more, for example, in the one word Lord, placed just in front of Macaulay, than in any argument he may give on the subject. In fact, that word imposes on the mind an authority not easily resisted. It obscures the reason, quiets investigation, destroys the desire to search, beguiles thought, puts the mind to sleep, and the reader, like a young bird with eyes closed and mouth open, takes the food from out the old one's mouth, gulps it down, and goes to sleep. It is thus the student and the professor take, on authority, what they have no business to, and do what they never would do, did their own souls not bow basely at the shrine of some literary Baal. It is thus in politics, religion, history, law, philosophy, criticism, belles-lettres, science—whichever way we turn we find the false god and his worshipers. When the student and the professor come to find Mr. Macaulay to be a man of much talent in a certain direction, but by no means a literary god to be worshiped as infallible, they will lose faith in his assertions which come without proof.

It had been my intention to throw a few hints into the Introduction upon external and internal evidence, as it is called, but I concluded to defer it till now, because the remarks and the illustrations would then be thrown together.

In a criticism of this kind, but little confidence can be placed in external evidence, because it all comes within the realm of art or accident, and any scientific truth can not be founded thereon. For example, Macaulay says: "The handwriting of Junius is the very peculiar handwriting of Francis, slightly disguised." Handwriting is an art, just like chopping wood or playing on the piano. And to tell who wrote an article by the "peculiar" handwriting, is about as safe as to hazard an opinion upon who is chopping wood by the "peculiar" swing of the ax. Nor does the same individual always write in the same style or manner. Such proof is good for nothing. And this is the nature of all external evidence, and is the cause of the endless litigation in our courts. A man may go on the stand and swear to a lie. I have known men do it. Then we draw inferences from the associations of men, which the real facts of the case might not warrant. The accidents of place and position, of friendships and age, of times and circumstances, and even of existence, all may or may not, in a world full of men, have bearing on the facts which form the opinion of an outside spectator. For example, Francis, it is said, "did not deny that he was Junius." If he had denied or affirmed he was, it would have proved just the same. It belongs to the most worthless kind of external evidence. A naturalist does not ask his horse whether or not he is a horse. If the horse could speak and say to his master, "I am a jackass," the master would be a fool to believe him. It is thus persons often put on a character in a word or two which does not belong to them, but nature takes care to always reveal the true character, if they say much. Now if we could get within the meaning of the words, get behind them to the spirit of their author, we would be getting at the very soul of evidence. This would be true, and we could found a scientific conclusion upon it, because natural and not artificial. This is internal evidence. At present, this kind of evidence is known only in such a criticism as this, for the soul of the author shines out of his work, I care not who he is. We may, for aught I know, write our history on all we touch. If so, science will some day give the world a knowledge of it. It is then external evidence will have ceased.

In a work of this kind, it is incumbent on the critic to ascertain, first, the spirit and object of the work, and then to see if it be inconsistent with itself. If it is not, then the character he finds will be true to nature, and he can not go wrong in his conclusions. There is a passage in Letter 53 on this very point. Junius is speaking of the Rev. Mr. Horne, and says: "He repeatedly affirms, or intimates, at least, that he knows the author of these Letters. With what color of truth, then, can he pretend 'that I am nowhere to be encountered but in a newspaper?' I shall leave him to his suspicions. It is not necessary that I should confide in the honor and discretion of a man who always seems to hate me with as much rancor as if I had formerly been his friend. But he asserts that he has traced me through a variety of signatures. To make the discovery of any importance to his purpose, he should have proved either that the fictitious character of Junius has not been consistently supported, or that the author has maintained different principles under different signatures. I can not recall to my memory the numberless trifles I have written; but I rely on the consciousness of my own INTEGRITY, and defy him to fix any colorable charge of inconsistency upon me."

Now, what have I shown? It is that the character of Thomas Paine, as found in his writings (not in what people say about him), is the very same character, with all its shades and coloring, which is found in the Letters of Junius. This is shown by the best and strongest evidence under the sun, internal evidence. I have purposely avoided all external evidence, from the mere fact of its worthlessness, inasmuch as it is that kind of evidence which itself needs proof. If, for example, Thomas Paine had said to some one: "I wrote Junius," it would be no evidence to me, and would weigh just the same as if he had said: "I did not write Junius." It is external evidence, and may be a lie, for lying is common to mankind. It is that kind of evidence which needs proof. But nature never makes two great characters alike, nor at the same time. She is prodigal of varieties. And if two characters seem alike, it is because of their insignificance; the orbit of their life is so small it can not be measured. But when a Paine, or a Parker, or a Luther, or a Jesus, is let loose on earth, they each describe an orbit so large and peculiar there is no mistaking it for any thing else the world ever exhibits among men. And in their earthly pilgrimage, however seemingly erratic in their course, nature holds them true to her purposes, and holds up no lie therein to deceive the senses. She is true, also, to herself, in giving to us these world's redeemers.

My argument, then, is, Nature would not be natural if Thomas Paine were not Junius, a mere absurdity. But let us suppose he is not. Then, to make out the case, strong evidence of the same internal kind would have to be produced in favor of this supposition. But I have searched for a solitary fact which would even tend to contradict my hypothesis, and have not found it. And I frankly confess, had I found it, this book would not have been written. Reader, search for it yourself, and, when found, publish it to the world, for the world is suffering for the want of truth. And though my conclusions be false, if I have been the means of revealing the truth, I shall not have written in vain.