CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT BUND GIVEN IN 1891 BY HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE 3 1924 103 924 290 Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31 9241 03924290 DISSERTATI a'N O N MIRACLES. E'R RATA. Pag. lin. 15a ' 7 read the power of working miracles^ 161 21 forces read is 163 6 & 7 yir lies agaiuft both, read affefts them both^, DISSERTATION O N MIRACLES: CONTAINING An Examination of the Principles advan- ced by David Hume, Efq; In an ESSAY on MIRACLES. - • By GEORGE gAMPBELL, D.D. Principal of the Marilchal College, and one of the Minifters, of Aberdeek. The works that I do in my Father^s name, they bear viitnefi of me. John x> 25. EDINBURGH: Printed for A. K i m c a i d & J. B e l t. Sold by A. Millar, R. & J. Dodsley, W. Johnstoit^ R. Baldwin, and J. Richardson^ Londoti, MDCCLXII. ■r o THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, JOHN EARL OF BUTE, I ONE OF HIS MAJESTY'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARIES OF STATE, CHANCELLOR OF THE M^RISCHAL COLLEGE AND UNIVERjSITY OF ABERDEEN,"^ THE FOLLOWING DISSERTATION, IN DEFENCE OF A RELIGION, . OF WHICH HE IS AN EMINENT PA- TRON AND EXAMPLE, IS, WITH THE UTMOST RESPECT AND GRATITUDE, INSCRIBED BY HIS LORDSHIP'S MOST DUTIFUL, MOST DEVOTED, AND MOST HUMBLE SERVANT, GEORGE CAMPBELL. A D V E Jl^T I S E M E N T, ^nr^IS not the only, nor even the chief, ■^r- defign of thefe ftieets, to refute the reafoning and objedtitins of Mr Hume, with regard to miracles : the chief defiga of them is, to fet the principal argument for Chriftianity in its proper light. On a fubje(5t that hath been fo often treated, 'tis impoHlble to avoid faying many things which have been faid before. It may, however, with reafon be affirmed, that there ftill remains, on this fubjedl, great fcope for new obfervations. Befides, it ought to be remember'd, that the evidence of any complex argument depends very much on the order into which the mate- rial circumftances are digefted, and the manner in which they are difplay'd. The Effay on Miracles deferves to be con^ fider'd, as one of the qjoft dangerous at- b tacks vl AD V E R T I S E M E N T. tacks that have been ma.de on o:ur religion. The danger refults not folely from the me- rit of the PIECE; it refults much more from that of the author. The piece it^ felf, like every other work of Mr Hume, is ingenious ; but its merit is more of the oratorial kind than of the philofophicaL The merit of the author, I acknowledge, is great. The many ufeful volumes he hath publiihed of ^j/?orr, and on critici/m, politics , and trade, have juftly procur'd him, with all perfons of tafte and difcernment, the higheft reputation as a writer. What pity is it, that this reputation fhould have been fullied by attempts to undermine the foun- dations both of natural religion, and of reveal' d ! For my own part, I think it a piece of juftice in me, to acknowledge the obliga- tions I owe the author, before I enter on the propos'd examination. I have not on- ly been much entertain'd and inftrudled by A t) V E R T I S E M E NT. vii by his works ; but, if I am Jrailefs'd of a- ny talent ill abftra^: reafoning, I. am not a little indebted to what he hath written on human nainre, for the iriiprovement of that tat^it. If therefore, in this trat^l, I have Fefutcd Mr Hume's EJay, the greater fhare of the merit is.: perhaps to be afcrib'd to Mr Hume himfelf. The Compliment which the Ruffiaii monarch, defter the fa- mous battle of Poltovfra, paid the Swedifh generals, when he, gave them the honoiir- able appellation of his meters in the art of •a^ar, I may, . with great fincerity, pay my aciBte and ingenious adverfary. I fhall add a few thinga concerning the bccafion a,nd form of the following difler- tation. Some of the principal topics here dif- cafssd, were more briefly treated in 2ifermon preached before xht/ynod. of Aberdeen, and are now made public at their defire. To the end rfiat an argument of fo great b 2 importance viii A I) V E' R^T r S E M E- N T. importance might be 'mtjre fully and freell^ canvafs'd than it^flcotilti have treeii, t^iritfc propriety, in a fermon, it was judg'd ne- cefTary to new-model the difcourfe, and m give it that form' in which it now appeajrs% "The edition of Mr Hmne^s eflays • to which I alv^ays refer in this wbrfc, is that printed at London, in duodecimo, i75'o, intitled, Philofophical ejfays concemifi^ ifc- •man underjiandtng. I have, fince finifliing ■this trad, feen a later edition, in which there are a few ^ariatioM^ None ofitfoem appear'd to me fo material, as to give ground for altering the ■ijmstp.tiom and /vr- ferences hsii'e. us'd. There is indeed" bne tdteraiim,' which candour requir'd that.-i fhould mention : I have accordingly menr- tion'd it in a note *. . • TliQ arguments of the eflayifl I have en*- -deavour'd to refute by argument. -Mere declamation I know no way of refuting, Jage2i4. but A I> V E R T I SEME NT. ix but by ^alyfifg it ;. nor do I conceijVe how inconfijiencies can be anfwer'd otherwife Ithan by expofing them. In fuch analyjis and expj(^ition, jffh\.c\i, J own, I have at- tempted without ceremony or referve, an air oi ridicule is unavoidable : but this rir dicuh, I am vvell aware, if foutided in mif- reprefentation, will .arlaft rebound upon myfelf. It is poffible, that, in fomethijn^, I have jniflaken the author's meaning ; I am conicious, that I have not, in any thing, de&gnemj mifreprefenied ix. CON- C O N T E N T S. . Pag. Introdu^lion, - - - i PART I. ,' Miracles are capable of proof from te- ftimony, and religious .miracles are not lefs capable of tliis evidence than , others. ' Sect. I. Mr Hume's favourite argument is founded on afalfe hy pot hefts, - j II. Mr Hume charged ivith fome falla- cies in his -way of managing the argument, - - "37 III. Mr Hume himfelf gives up his far vourite argument, - - 6i ly. There is no peculiar prefumption a- gainjlfuch miracles as are fmd to have been %vr ought infupport of re- ligion, - - _ yj V. There CONTENTS. xi Sect. Pag. V. There is a peculiar prefumption in fa- vour offuch miracles as are f aid to have been ivrought infupport of re- ligioH, - - - 88 VI. Inqmry into the meaning and propri- ety of one of Mr Hume's favourite maxims, - - - 93 PART II. The miracles on which the belief of Chriftianity is founded, are fuffi- ciently attefted. Sect. I. There is no prefumption arifing from human nature, againf the miracles faidio have been -wrought in proof ofChriflianity, - - 104 II. There is no prefumption ariftng from the hijlory of mankind, againfl the miracles faid to have been nvrought in proof of Chrijlianity, - izi III. No xii C O N T^ N T S. Sect. -Pag. III. No miracles recorded by kifiofians of . other religions are Jiibi/er/in/e of fhe evidence arifing from the wi^ctdes 'wrought in proof (f Chrifiaii^tfy or can be conftderd as CQUtrwx tefi' j mony, ' - - - 1 60 IV. Examination of the Fag AJ^imirdcles mentioned by Mr Hume, - 181 V. Examination of the Po p i s 1^ miracles mentioned by Mr Hume, ' ^' 210 VI. .AbJiraSiing from the evidence for particular fa^s, nve have^ irrefrar> gable evidence, that there have been miracles informer times; or fuch events as, ivhen compard nvith the prefefit conflitution jof the ivorld, ivould by Mr Hume be, de- nominated rniraculous, - 248 VII., Revifal of Mr Hume's examination of the Pentateuch^ - ,- x6z CoTkclufion, - - - 280 introduction; MsTfAi^rT y/' it'hkth been faidj r is not fbuhdM In argnmcnt." If it were only meant by thefe words, that the religion of Jefus coidd not, by the fihgle aid of realbning, produce its full ef- fe{?t 4ipoii the heart ; every true Ghriftian #dMd chearfelly fubfcribe to themi No argtimfenfes .unaccompanied by the influen- ces of tii€i^Hoiy Spirit, can convert the foul &om £i!i to God;, though even to fuch cofifreffion^ aTgumeats are^ by the agency of Ae SjMt, render'd fubfa-vient. Again, ^ we were to underftand by this aphorifm, ^at the principles of oxu- religion could never hatvjb been diicover'd, by the natural and unaifiiltdd faculties of man; thispofition, I priefiune, would 'be as little difputed as the forpief, But if, on the contrary, under the cover of an ambiguous exprelli on, it is A intended 2 INTRODUCTION. intended to infinuate, th,aiE thofe jprip.ci-' pies, from their very nature, can admit no rational evidence of their truth, (and this, by the way, is the only meaning which can ay ail our antagonifts) the go- ipel, as well as common fenfe, loudly , re- claims againft it. The Lord Jesus Christ, the author of our religion, often argu'd, bot;h with his difciples and with his adverfaries, a& with reafonable men, on the principles of rea- fon. Without this faculty, lie well knew* they could not be fufceptible ? either of re-r ligion or of law. He argu'd from prp- phecy, and the conformity of the event to the predidion *. He argu'd from the,, teftimony of John the Baptift, who was generally ackilowled.ged to be a prophet -f-. He argu'd from the miracles which he himfelf perform'd +, as uncontrovertible evidences, that God Almighty operated * Luke xxiv. 25. &g. John v. 39. & 46. f John v. 32. &33; t; John V, 36. x. 3J. 37. 38. xiv. to. 11. , by INTRO DUCTI ON. 3 by him, and had fent him. He expoflu- lates with his enemies, that they did not ufe their reafon on this fubjecfl. Whj, fays he, evenof your/elves, judge ye not ivhat is right*? In like m:anner we are Called uf)- on by the apoftles of our Lord, to adl th? part of /wife men, and 7«^^ impartially of ivhat they fay -f. Thofe who do fo, are highly commended, for the candour and prudence they difcover, in an affair of fo great' confequence |. We are even com-t manded, to :he alivays ready to give an an-' fiver to evety man, that ajketh us a reafon of our hope || ; w mieknefs, to inJirnB them that- oppofe themfehves ** j Sind earnejily to contend for the faith ivhich ivas once delivered to the faints -f-f, God has neither in natural noir reveal'd religion, left himfelfivithout a ivitnefs; but has in both given moral and external evidence, Sufficient to convinc( * Lukexii. jy. + i Cor. x. ij. f Aftsxvii. ii. I I Peter iii. 15. ** 3 Tim. ii. 25. ff l*^^^ 3- A 3 the. 4 INTRO DUtJT ION. the impartial, t© filence the gainfayerj and to rehder the atheift and the unbeliever wiAout exciife. This eviderite it is otir duty to attend to, and candidly to -exaiijinct We ravdi. prove all things^, 'a,^ fWe JS-te ex- prefsly enjoin'd in holy writ, if we wdtdd ever hope to hold f aft thai^zubich is good *. ■ 'I'HUs mucli 1 thougnt proper to premiic, not to ferve as an apology f or the defign t)f this tradl, (the defign fiirely needs no apo- logy, whateVej^ the world may judge of the execution) but to expofe the fhaHow-r nels of that pretext, under which the ad^ Vocates for infidelity in this age commonly take Ihelter, Whilft therefore we enforce an argument, which, in fupport of ou? religion, was fo frequently infilled on by its divine founder, we wili not dread the feproachfuL titles of dangerous Jriends, or difgiiifed enemies^ of revelation. Such ^re the titles, whicl^ the writer, whofe fen- ' * J Thefl". V. 31. 'M' timents BN-T R Q n Tit G T r jO M 5- ^lixenits :We:^opb& in thdfe papers to can- ■ya£si batb'bcHotw'dr on las asitagomfts'^l iioCy 'I ib^lifiw, ,thr(^ttgh inaJio^ '^gainU dfem, b\it as a fort of excufe for feiaifelifj iff at Itkft a handle ftM" in^oidtiemg a very fbange and tmkieahing compliment to the f digion of his cdiintry,^aftfir a ve*y bLold at- tekn|itt to undef mine it/ We will however do him the juftice to own, that he hath ptjit it o«it of our power to retort the €hai^. No intelligent perfon, who hath carcftilly pdrttted the EJhy on Mirddes, will im jjttte to the author either of thofe igno" minious charai!lers. • ■'My^/)nW{»7 intention in undtataking an atrfwer to the aforcfaid tflay/ hath invari- ably been, to contribute all in my power, t6 thedefence of a religion, which I efteem €ie greateft '%lefiSflg' conferred by < Heiaven iwi the fons of men. ' It is at the fame time zfectmdary motive hS corifiderable "weight, to vindicate 3!)fe7o^/»A?y, at leaft that moil im- • - .» J), 304. portant 6 INTRODUCTION. portant branch of it which afcertains the niles of reafoning, from thofe abfurd con- feqviences, as I imagine, which -this au- thor's theory naturally leads us to. .The theme is arduous. The adverfary is t»pth> fubtle and powerful. With fuch an ad^ verfary, I Ihould on very unequal terms enter the lifts, had I, not the advantage of being on the fide of; truth. And an emi^ nent advantage this doubtlefs is. It re quires but moderate abilities to fpeak in defence of a good caufe. A good caufe demands but a diftincjl expofition, and a, fair hearing ; and we may fay with great propriety, jt will fpeak for itfelf. But to ^dorn error with the fem,blance of truth ^ and make the ivorfe appear the better reafon, I'equires all the arts of ingenuity and in^ verition; arts in which few or none have been more expert than Mr Hume. It ia much to be regretted, that on fome occa-^ fions he hath fo i\\ applied tj^em,, h DISSERTATION O N MIRACLES. PART I. Miracles are capable of proof from teftimony, and religious miracles are not lefs capable of this evi- dence than others. SECTION I. Mr Humes favourite argument is founded on afalfe hypothefis. IT is not the aim of this author to evince, that miracles, if admitted to be true, would not be a fufBcient evidence of a divine miffion. His defign is 8 Miracles capable of Parti. is fblely to prove, yf hat miracles which have not been .the objen(wer to this I propofe firft to prove that the whole is built upon a falfe hypothefis. That the evidence of tefti-* mony is derived folely from experience^ which feems to be an axiom of this "vyri-* ter,. is at leaft not fo incoiitellable a truth; as he fiippofes it; that, on the contraryj teftimony hath a natural and original in- fluence on belief, antecedent to experience, will, I imagine, caiily be evinced, ¥ot this' purpofe let it be rcmark'd, that thd earliefl afTerit, which is given to teftimpi ny by children, and which is prjsvious t6 all experience, is in f adl the moft unlimit'- ed.; that by a gradual experience of man;^ kind, it is gradually contraded, and re^ duceti S«S»i. tROO'F lFS.bM TESTIMONY. 1$ aS to a carelefs view it may appear. 'Acc^drng to his philofopihy, the prefumption lies a- "gainft the teftimony, or (which amounEs to i^; Miracles capable of PartL to the fame thing) there is not the fmalkft preiumption in its favour, till properly fupported by experience. According to the explication given above, there lies the ftrbngeft presumption in favour of the te- ftimony, till properly refuted by expe-. rience. If it be objefled by the author, that fuch a faith in teftimpny as is prior to expe- rience, muft be unreafonable and unphilo- fbphical, becaufe unaccountable ; Ifhould- reply, that there are, and mufl be, in hu- man nature, fome original grounds of be- lief, beyond which , our refparches cannot • proceed, and of which therefore 'tis vain . to attempt a rational account. I fhoul^. defire the objedlor to give a reafonable ac- count of his faith in this principle, that fimilar caufes always produce Jtmilar effeHs ; . or in this, that the courfe of nature 'will be the fameto-morronVf that it ijoas ytjierday , and if to- day : principles, which he himfelf acknow- ledges, Sedhl^ PROOF PROMfFStTMONY. l'^ ledges, are neitfeieu intuitively- evident, tKjrifdeduced from premi'fesj and which iMifll-feWheleis we g^re tinder a neceflity of ^d^ppofiug, in ail our feafotoings frOia experience *. I fliould. defire hitn to give 3 Teafonable account of Iii& faith in the cleareft infdrcbatioas of his memory, which he :v!ill find it* alike impoffible either to doubt; or to explain. Indeed memory bears nearly the* fame rfektibn to e^iperi- eiscej' 'that ' teftimoAy does. Certain 'it is that the defeds a^d mifreprelentations of Vdi^nastf are often corredled by experience. Ydt fhbuld any perfon hence infer, that memory derives all its evidence from ex- perience, he would fall into a manifeft ab- furdity. On the contrary, experience tierives its origin folely from memory, and is nothing elfe but the general ma- xitns or conclufions, we have form'd, from the comparifon of particular faifls remem- Sceptica] doubts.' Part 2. ' ' C ber'd. i8 7 MiRAClifiS CAPABLE XJF . PstrtF. ber'd. If we had not previoufly given an implidt faiich to memory, we had never been able to acquire experience, "When therefore we fay that memory^ wMch gives iiirth to experience, may neverthelHsT in fome inftances be corredled by experience, no mote is imply 'd, but that the inferen? ces form'd from the moft; lively and.perr fpicuous reports of < memory, femetimes ferve to redlify the miftakes which arifs from fuch reports of this faculty, as a are moft languid and confus'd. Thus memo- ry, in thefe iaftaaces, may befaidto cor-^ redl itfelf. The- cafe is often much the iame with experience and teftimony,^ as will appear more clearly in the lecondifec*- tion^ where I.ihall.eonfidcr the ambiguity of the word, experience, as us'd by this atfe- |hor. ; .■ -. , .; :i^33 ■ •,.'••■ ..:'..: htiK. But how, fays Mr Hume, Js teftim% ny then to be refuted ? Pricfcip^lly in -qrie St»<^^I. PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. r^ W Other of thefe two ways : firji and moft diredlly by contfadidlory teftimony ; that is, when an equal or greater number of witnefles, equally or more credible, at- teft the contrary : y^-fOMii/y, by fuch evi- dence either of the -incapacity or bafenefs of the wknelles, as is fufficient to difcre- (ht them. What^ rejoins my aiitagdnifti cannot then teftimony be confuted by the Extraordinary nature of the fe,6l attefted ? Hasc this confideration no weight at all ? That this iEonfider-ation hath no -vyeight at aH, 'twas never my intention to maintain; ^lat by itfelf it can very rarely, if ever, a- monnt to a refutation againft ample and anexcEfJcbnable teftimony, I hope to make fxtremely plain. Who hath ever 'denied, that the uncommonnefe of an event rela- ted, is a prefumption againft its reality j and that chiefly on account of the tenden- cy, which, experience teacheth us, and this authtff hath oblerved, fome people C 2 have io 'MiRACLSLS CAisABLE 6T -PartL l^aveto facrifice trudi to the 'love of won- der *? The qiieftioa oiily is, How far does this prefumption extend ? In the ex-* tent which Mr Hume hath affign'd it, he hath greatly exceeded the limits df laaEture, and confequently of all jufl reafoning. - - ■ Ih his opinion, " When the fadl' Stteft- " ed is fiich as has feldoiii fallefi ttnder' ■' our obfervation, there is a contrft of " two oppofite experiences, of which the " one deftroys the other, as far 'as its force " goes,- atid the fupefior can only operate :' on the mind, by the force whit?h re- *' m^iiis ■f'." There is a metaphyfical, I had almoft faid, a, magical balance and «- rithmetic, for the weighing and fubtrax^ing of evideilce, which he frequently recurs to, and with which he feems to fancy he eould pet-forin wonders. I wifhh'e had been a little 6aore explicit in telchirig us how thefe rare inventions inuft be'us'd. p, 184. f p."i7^ ■ ' " " ** Whe« Se^.i. fiROOP FR6M TESTIMONY. 21 When a -writer ©if genius and elocution ex- |jreffes himfelf; in general tertns, he will feiditaneafy matter, to give a ^lauiible ajppiearance to things themoftimintelligible xbt liature. Such fometimes is this author's ■wky of writing.' To a fuperficial view his iil^^ument appears Icarce inferior to demon- ftration, but when narrowly canvafs'd, 'tis impracfticable to find an application^ ©f which, in a confiftency with truth and reafon, it is capable. ■ In confirmation of the remark juft, now made, let us try how his manner of ar- guing on this point can be apphed to a particular inftance. For this purpofe I make rhe following fuppofition. I have liv'd for fome years near a ferry. It con- fiils with 'my knowledge that the pafiage- boat has a thoufand times crolled the. ri- ver, and as many times-retum'd fafe. An unknown tastn, whom I have ijuft now iji^t, tells tne in a ferious manner, that it is ±± .-Miracles capable , op Parti.' is loft ; and affirms, that he hiiiifelf ftarid- mg on 'the> bank, ■ was a fpedlator of th& fcene ; that he faw the paflengers Carried down the ftream, and the boat over- whelm'd and dafh'd to pieces. No perfon," who is influenced in his judgment o£ things, not by philofophical fubtilties, but by common fenfe, a much furer guide j will hefitate to declare j that in fuch a te- ftimony I have probstble evidence of the fa(^ aflerted. But if leaving common fenfe,' I'fiiall reciir to metaphyfics^ aiid itibiiiit to be tutbr'd in my way of jud" ging by the eflayift, he will remind me, " that there is here a conteft of two oppo- '^ fite experiences, of which the one de?; " ftroys the other, as far as its force goes; " and the fuperior can only opeirate on " the mind by the force which remains.',' I am wam'd, that " the very fame prin- "^ ciple of experience, which gives - me a *' certain degree of afTurance in- the tefti- " mony Se^I. PRQOFi FROM TESTIMONY, aj **, Hionyof the witnefe,; gives mealfb, da *' this cafe, another degree of allurance, "aagainft the fail, which he endeavovffs " to eftabUfh,:^ from which contradiiflion " diere arifes a counterpoife, and mutual " deftru(5lion of belief and authority *." Wdl, I v^ould Jcaow the truth, if pofQble; ^nd that I may, conclude fiiiriy and philo- ibphically, .how muft I balance thele cp- pofite experiences, as you are pleas'd t6 term them?. . Muft I iet the thoufand, or rather the two, thoufand inftances of the one fide, againft."the fingle inftance of the other? In that cafe, 'tis, eafy to fee,. I havcnineteen hundred andninety^nine de-- gj-e;es of evidence, that my information is falfe. Or is it neceflkry, in order to make it/Credible, that the. fingle. inftance have two thgufand, times as much evidence, as any of the oppofite inftances, fiippofing them equal among themfelve§;.or fuppo- fing 24 ."i Miracles CAPABLE OF PartTi iing iiierQiiiiequal, as much as all the Cvv*d ,thoufand put together,-? tihat there may-' hb at leaft an equilibrium?' This is impol^ fible. U I 'had for fome of thbfe inftanees', the evidfenee of fenle, which'' hardly any teftiniony can eqiial,'^ mxich lefs eXebed'. Once more, inuft the eyidience I havfe of the veracity of the' witnefs,xbe a full Jeqiii* valent to :the ' twoj thoufand , inftarices, which oppofe the fadl attefted? By the fupfiofition, I have no pofitive evidence for oragainflhis veracity,' he being a perfoii whom I never faw before. ^^ Yet if none of thefe be the balancing, which the effay writer" means, I defpair of being able to diicovcr his nieaning. '• ,> ■ >i't# j iu :?i!\; -'Is then fo weak a proof from teftimohy incapable of being refuted ? I 'aiaa far from thinking fo ; tho' even fo weak a proof could not be overturn'd by fuch a' contrary experience. How then may it be €>v-€^- t;vini'd ? Firfi, by contradidlory^,teflimony. Going if. PROOF-FROM TESTIMONY. ?jf Going homewards 1 meet anotlter perfon, whom I know aa little ajS I did the for^* mier; fi,n,(ting that he comes from the ferry, I afk him concerning the truth of the rc'- port. He affirms, that the whole is a fic^- tion 1 that he faw the boat, and all in it, Qome. i^fe to land. This would, do -more to turn the fcale,. than fifty, tlioufand fuclji cpntrary inftances^ as were fuppos'd. Yet this wou'd not entirely remove fufpicion. Afterward at third, and; a fourth, and a ^fth, confirm the declaration of thefecond, I fliall then be quite at eafe. Is ..this th^ only eflfeftual way of confuting falfe tefti-r mony I No. I fuppofe cigain, that inflead of meeting with any perfon.w.hq can in- form me concerning the fad, I get from fome, who are acquainted . with the wit- nefs, information concerning his charap? ter. They tell me, .he is notorious for ly- ing. ; and that , his lies are commonly forged^ not with a •view to intereft, but D mereljf ^6 Miracles capable oP PartL merely to gratify a malicious pleaiure^ "which he takes in alarming -ftrangers. This, tho' not fo diredl a refutation as the former, will be fufficient to difcredit his teport. In the former, where there is te- ftimony contradidling teftimony, the au- thor's metaphor of a balance may be us'd with propriety. The things weighed are homogeneal: and when contradidlory e- vidences are prefented to the mind, tend- ing to prove pofitions which cannot be both true, the mind muft decide on the somparative ftrength of the oppofite evi- iences, before it; yield to either. But is this the cafe in the. iuppoiition irft made? By no means. The two thou* and inftances formerly known, and the ingle inftance attefted, as they relate ta iifferent fadts, tho' of a contrary nature, ire not contradictory. • There is no in- ronfiftency in believing both. There; is lo inconfiftency in receiving the lafl on weaker Se6l. I. PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. If weaker evidence, (if it be .fufficient evi- dence), not only than all the former toge- ther, but even than any of them fingly. Will it be faid, that tho' the former in- ftances are not themfelves contradi(5lory to the fadl recently attefted, they lead to a concluiion that is contradidlory ? I an- fwer, 'Tis true,' that the experienced fre- quency of the conjundlion of any tvro e- vents, leads the mind to infer a fimilat Gonjundlion in time to come. But let it at the fame time be remark'd, that no man confiders this inference, as haying e- qual evidence w^ith any one of. thofe paft events, on which it is founded, and for the belief of which we have had fufficient teftimony. Before then the method re- commended by this author can turn to a- ny account, it will be neceffary ,for him tp compute and determine; with precifion^ how many hundreds, how many thou- fa,ijd§, I might fay how many myriads of P 2 i^ftances^ "2^ Miracles capable of Parti. inftances, will confer fuch'elidenceonthe conclufion founded on thenti, As will provtf an equipoize for the teftimony of one o- cular witnefsj a man of probity, in a cale of which he is a;llow'd to be a competent jud^. ' • There is in fl/'#:6f«^ftV a rule called re- T> uc TioN, by which numbers of different denominations are brought to the fame denomination.- If this- ingenious author fhall invent' a rtfle in logic ^ analogous to ^4s, for reducing different clatfles of evi- dence to the fame clafs, he will blefs th'd world with a moft important difcovery; Then indeed he wi'll have the honour to eftablifh an everlaftin-g peace in the repu- blic of letters ; then we fhali have the hap- pinefs to fee controverfy of every kind, theological, hiflorical, philofophical, re- ceive its mortal wound: for though, in ev^ry queflion, we could not even then de- termine with certainty, on which fide the truth Se6l» 1. fl.OOF FROM TESTIMONY. 4f truth 14^, we could always determine (and tiiait is the'utmoft the nature of the thing admits) with- as much accuracy as geometry arid algebra can afford, on which fide the jH'oba^ility lay, and in what degree. But till this metaphyfical redieSHmb is difcoveir'd, 'twill be impoffible^ where the evidences are of different owlei^ to aicertain hj fubtra£iion the fuperior evi- dence. We could not but efteem him a blunderer in arithmetic, who being aiked, whether feven pounds or eleven" pence make the greater fum, and what i« the diference? Ihould, by attending folely to the numbers, and overlooking the value, coDcltide that eleven pence were the great- er, and that it exceeded the other by four. Muft we not be equal novices in reafoning, if we follow the fame abiiird method'' Muft we not fall into as great blunders? Of as little fignificancy do we find the ba* iance,- Is the value of things heterogeneal to go . Miracles capable of PartL ti3 be cjetermin'tl merely by weight ? Shall filver be . weighed againft . lead, or copper againft iron ? If in exchange for a piece of gold, I; were offer'd fome counters of bafer , metal, is it not)Obvious,_ that till I know the comparative value of the metals,- in vain fhall I attempt to findi what is e- quivalent, by the affiftance either of Scales or arithmetic ? .. ..... i 'Tis an excellent, obfervation, and much to the purpofe, which the late learned and pious Bifliop of Durham,, in his admirable performance on the analogy of religion to the courfe of nature, hath made on this fubjedt. "- There is a very ftrojig pre- " fumption," fays he, " againft the moft " ordinary fa£ls, be/ore the proof of them, " which yet is overcome by alirioft any ^' proof. There is a prefumption of mil- " lions to one againft the ftory of Ca?far, ** or of any other man. Forfuppofeanum,-' " ber Se(5t.I. PROOF FR6M TESTIMONY. 3I " ber of Gommon fadls, fo and fo clrcum- " ftanced, of which one had no kind, of " proof, ihould happen to.come into one's " thoughts, every, one would, without 3l- " ny poflible. doubt, conclude them to be " falfe. , The like may be faid of a fingle " common fadl *." What then, I may lubjoin, Ihall be faid of an unconwnon fadl? In, order to illuftrate the obfervation above cited,, fuppofe, foft, one at random mentions, that at fiich an hour, of iuch a . day, in fuch a p3.rt of the heavens, a co- met ivill appear ; the coriclufion from ex- perience would not be as milHons, but as infinite to one, that the propofition is falie. Inftead.of this, fiippofe you have the tefti- mony of but one man of integrity, who is ikill'd in aftronomy^ that at fiich an hour, of fuch a day, in fuch a part of the hea- vens, a comet did appear ; you will not hefitate one moment to give him credit. „ • Part 2. chap. 2. § 3. Yet 32 Miracles CAPABLE of Parti. Yet all the prefumptioii that was againft the truth of the firft fuppqfition, tho' al- mdft as firong evidence as experience can aiFbrdy was alfo againft the truth of the fecond, before it was thus attefted. Is it neceflary to urge further, in lup- port of this dodlrine, ' that as the water in the canal cannot be made to rile higher than the fountairt whence it flows ; fo it is impofTible, that the evidence of teftimony, if it proceeded from exr perience, fhould ever exceed that of ex- ■perience, which is its fource? Yet that it greatly exceeds this evidence, appears not only from what hath been obferv'd al- ready, but ftill more, from what- 1 Ihall have occafion to obfef ve in the fequel. One may fafely affirm, that no conceivable conclufion from experience, can pof- fefs ftronger evidence, than that which afcertains us of the regular fucceffion and duration of day and night. The rtafon is ) Se6t. I. PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 33 is, the inffcances on which this e:Sperience is founded, are both without numbCT and without exception. Yet even this coiiclu- fion, the author admits, as we fliall fee in £he third fedion, may, in a particular in- ftance, not only be furmotijitedj but even annihilated by teftimony. , - ^- Laftly, let it be obferved-,' that the imme •diate conclufion from experience is always _general, and runs thus: 'This is the ordi- * nary courfe of nature.' ' Such an event ' may reafbnably be expedled, where all * the circumftances are entirely fimilar.' But when we defcend to particulars, the conclu£on becomes weaker, being imore kidirciSL For though all the kmivn cir- cumftances be fimilar, all the aBtml circumftances may not be fimilar : nor is it pofEble in any cafe to be af^ fur'd (our knowledge of things being at beft but fuperficial) that all the aflual circumftances are known to us. On E th^ ;34 Miracles capable of Parti. the contrary, the diredl conclufion from teftiiaaony is always particular, and runs thus : ' This is the fadl in fuch an ' " individual inftance.' The remark now- made will ferve both to throw light on fome of the preceding obfervitions, and to indicate the proper fphere of each Ipe- cies of evidence. Experience of the paft is the or^ly rule whereby we can judge con- cerriing xh.t future: And as when the fun is below the horizon, we muft do the bell we can by the light of the moon, or even of the ftars ; fo in all cafes where we have no teftimony, we are under a neceffity of recui«- ring to experience, and of balancing or num' bering contrary obfervations *. But the - evidence * Wliere-ever flich talancing oi* numbering can takf place, the oppofite evi(fences muft- be entirely fimiTar. It will rarely affiftus in judging of iadls. fapported 'by teftimony : for even where contradiiStory teflimonies come to be confidered, you will hardly find, that the charailers of the witnefles on the oppofite fides ?,re fo precifely equal, as that an arithmetical operation Sedl. 1. PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. ^^ evidence refulting hence, even in the clear- eft cafes, is acknowledged to be fo weak, compar'd with that which refults from te- fliall evolve the credibility. In matters of pure experience it hath often place. Hence the computations that have been made of the value of annuities, infurances, aiid feveral other com- mercial articles. In calculations concerning chances, -the de* gree of probability may be determiii'd with mathematical ex- aftnels, I (hall here take the liberty, tho' the matter be not eflential to the defign of this traft, to correA an overfight in the effayift, who always fuppofes, that where contrary evi- dences muft be balanced, the probability lies in the remainder or furplus, when the lefs number is fubtrafted from the great* er. The probability doth not confift in the furplus, but in the ratio, or geometrical proportion, which the numbers on the oppofite fides bear to each otlier. I explain myfclf thus« In favour of one fuppos'd event, there are loo fimilar jnftances, againft it 50. In another cafe under confide- radon, the favourable inftances are 60, and only 10 unfavour- able. Tho' the difference, or arithmetical proportion, which is 50, be the fame in both cafes, the prpbability is by no means equal, as the author's way of reafoning implies. The probabi- lity of the firft event is as 100 to 50, or 3 to i. The pro- bability of the fecond is as 60 to 10, or 6 to i. Confe- quently on comparing the different examples, tho' both be pro-' bable, the fecond is thrice as probable as the firlt. E 2 ftimony, ^6 Miracles capa^kle of -FartL flimony, that the ftrongeft canvidtioa built merely on the former, may be over- turn'd by die llightelt proof exhibited by the latter. Accordingly the future hath^ in all ages and nations, been denomina- ted the jMTovince of conjedlure and imcer- tainty. Tnuslhavefhown, as I propos'd, that the author's reafoning proceeds on a falfe hypothefis. It flippofeth teftimony to derive its evidence folely from experience, which is falfe. —- It fuppofeth by, eonfe- quence, that contrary obfervations have a weight in oppofing teftimony, which the firft and mofl acknowledged principles of human reafon, or, if you like the term better, common fenfe, evidently fhow& tliat they have not. It affigns a rule fcM- dif- covering the faperiority of contrary evi- dences, which, in the latitude there given it, tends to miflead the judgment, and which Se6i.2. PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 37 which 'tis impoflibJe, by any explication, to render of real uie. SECTION II. Mr Hume charged ivithfome fallacies in his •way of managing the argument, IN the elTay there is frequent mention of the word experience^ and much ufe e- very where made of it. "Tis ftrange that the author hath not favour'd us with the definition of a term, of fo much moment to his argument. This defeat I fhall en- deavour to fupply ; and the rather, as the word appears to be eqtdvocal, and to be us'd by the ellayift in two very different fenfes. The firft and moft proper fignifi- cation of the word, which, for' diftinc- tion's fake, I fhall call perfonal experience, is that given in the preceding fedlion. * It ' is,' as was obferv'd, ' founded in memo- * ry, and confifts foiely of the general ma- * xims 38 Miracles capable of Parti. f xiins or conclufionsj that each indiv'idual ' hath form'd, from, the comparifon of ' the particular fafts he hath remem- ' ber'd.' In the other Signification, in which the word is Ibmetimes taken, and which I fhall diftinguifh by the term de- rivd, it may be thus defin'd. ' It is * founded in tejiimony, and confifts not on- ' ly of all the experiences of others, which ' have thro' that channel been communi- ' cated to us, but of all the general ma- ' xims or conclufions we have form'd, from ' the comparifon of particular fadls atteft- ' ed.' In propofing his argument, the author would furely be underftood to mean only perfonal experience ; otherwife, his making teflimony derive its light from an expe- rience which derives its light from teftimo- Or ny, would be introducing what logicians term a circle in caufes. It would exhibit the fame things alternately, as caufes and efFeds Sed.2. PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 39 effeds of feach other. Yet nothing can be more Hmited, than the fenfe which is con- vey'd under the term experience, in the firft acceptation. The mereft clown or peafant ■derives incomparably more knowledge from teftimony, and the communicated experience of others, than in the longed Hfe he could have amafled out of the trea- fure of his own memory. ' Nay, to fuch a fcanty portion the favage himfelf is not confin'd. If that therefore muft be the rule, the only rule, by which every tefti- mony is ultimately to be judged, our belief in matters of fadl muft have very narrow bounds. No teftimony ought to have any weight with us, that doth not relate an e- vent, fimilar at leaft to fome one obferva- tion, which we ourfelves have had accefs to make. For example, that there are fuch people on the earth as negroes, could not^ on that hypothefis, be render'd credible to one who had never feen a negro, not even 4° MiHacles capable of Parti. even by the moft numerous and the moft unexceptionable atteftations. Againft the admiffion of fuch teflimony, however ftrong, the whole force of the author's ar- gument ei^idently ftrikes. But that innu- merable abfurdkies would flow from this princifte, I might eafily evince, did I not think the taik fuperfluous . ' ■ * f ^ The author himfelf is aware of the con- fequences ; and therefore, in whatever fenfe he ufes the term experitnte in propofing Ki's argument ; in prpfecuting it, he^ with great dexterity fliiftSj the fen:fe, and ere the r^der is apprifed, infinuates ano- ther. " 'Tis a miracle," iays he, *' that " a dead man fhould come to life, be- " caufe diat has never been obferv'd in a- " ny age or country. There muft there- " fore be an uniform experience againft " every miraculous event, otherwife the " event would not merit that appella- " tion Se^.2. PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. ^I " tion*." Here the phrafCj an uniform ex- perience againjl ane'uenty in the latter claufe, is implicitly defin'din the former, not what 1ms never been obferv'd by us, but (mark his words) tvhat has never been obfervd IN ANY AGE OR COUNTRY. NoW, what has been obferv'd, and what has not been obferv'd, in all ages and countries, pray- how can you, Sir, or I, or any man, come to the knowledge of? Only I fiappofe by teftimony, oral or written. The perfonal experience of every individual is limited to but a part of one age, and commonly to a narrow fpot of one country. If there be afiy other way of being made acquainted with fadls, 'tis to me, I own, an impene- trable fecret; I have no apprehenfion of it. If there be not any, what Ihall we make of that cardinal point, on which his argument turns ? 'Tis in plain language, * Teftimony is not ifititled to the lead de- • p. i8i. F * gree 42 Miracles -CAPABLE OF PaS'tR * gree of faith, but as far as it is fupport* ' ed by fueh an extenfive experience, as if * we had not had a previous and indepear * dent faith in teftimony; we could aev^f * have acquir'd.' How natural is the tranfition from oiw ibphifm to another ! You will fbon be con- vinced of this, if you but attend a little XQ the ftrain of the argunaent. " A miracle^" fays he, " is a violation .pf the laws of na-' *■ ture ; and as a firm and unalterable €k- *' perience hcith eitablilhed thefe laws, th^ " proof agaii^fl; a miracle , is as entire, , as *' £|.ny argument from experience can pof" ^* fibly be imagined *." Again, " As an " uniform experience amounts^ to a proof, " there is here gi diredl and full proof, *' from the nature qf the f^d, againft the " e^Ciftence of any miracle •f'." I mnft ence more alk the author, What is the * p. ?8q. f p. i8i, precipe Ife(5lil. PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 4J ffeeil^ meaning of the words firm, unalter-^ ablPf uniform ? An experience that ad^ ffiitS no ^ception, is furely the only expe- rience, which can with propriety be term'd Vf^orm, firm, maUe-rabk. Now fince, as was remark'd above, the far greater part of this e3q)erienGe, which comprifeth every age and every country, muft be deriv'd to us from teftimony i that the exp^ience may be firm^^ unifdrm, unalterable, thefe mnft be no contriary teftimony whatever* Yet by the author's own hypothefis, th^ Sjcdracles he would thus confute, are fup* .ported by teftimony. At the fame time to give ftrength to his argijment, he is un- '^-der a neceffity of fuppofingj that there is no exception from the teftimonies againft them. Thus he falls into, th^t parallo- •gifctt, which is called begging -the quefiion. What he gives with one hand, he takes with the other. He admits, in opening his F 2 defign, 44 MiractlEs capable of Partl.> defign, what in his argument he imj^i- cidy denies. ; = But that this, if poffible, may be ftilt more mainifeft, let us attend a little to fbme expreffions, which ane would imae-* gine he had inadvertently dropt. . "■ So " long," fays he, " as the world endures^ " r prelume, will the accounts of miracles "and prodigies be found in all profane " hiftory *." Why does he prefume fo? A man fo much attach'd to experience, can hardly be fufpedled to have any other reafon than this ; becaufe fuch accounts have hitherto been found in all the hifto- ries, profane as well as facred, of tim-es paft. But we need not recur to an infer- ence to obtain this acknowledgment. It is often to Be met with in the effay."^ In one place we learn, that the witnefles for miracles are an infinite number •f' ; in another, that all religious records of wh^t- * P- 174' t P' 190* ever Sed.a.' PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 45! ever kind abound with them *; I leave it therefore to the author to explain, with what confiftency he can affert, that the laws of nature are eftablifli'd by an uni- form experience, (which experience is phiefly the refult of teftimony) and at the fame time allow, that almoft all human hiftories are full of the relations of miracle;s and prodigies, which are violations of thofe laws. Here is, by his own confeffion, te- ftimony againft teftimony, and very ample on both fides. How then can one fide claim a firm, uniform, and unalterable ftjppqrt from teftimony ? It will be in vain to objedl, that the te- ftimony for the laws of nature greatly ex- ceeds the teftimony for the violations ; and that, if we ace to be determin'd by the greater number of obfervations, we ftiall reje6l all miracles whatever. I alk. Why ^re'the teftimonies much more numerous in the one cafe than in the other ? The an- swer is obvious: Natural occurrences are * p- ipf- much 46 Miracles capable of PartL much more frequent than fuch as are pre-' teriiatural. But are all the accounts we have of "the peftilence to be rejeded as in- credible, becaufe, in this country, we hear hot fo often of that difeafe, as of the fever J Or; beeaufe the number of natural births is infinitely greater than that of monfters, fhall the evitlence of the former be regard- ed as a cdtilutation of all that can be ad- vanced in proof of the latter ? Such "an objedlor needs to be reminded of what was prov'd in the foregoing fedlion ; that the oppofite teftimonies relate to different fa'Sls, and are therefore not contradictory; that the conclufion founded on them, pcJfiibfleth not the evidence of the fads on which it is founded, but only fuch a prefumptive evi- dence, as may be furmounted by the flight- eft pofitive proof. A general conclufion from experience is in comparifon but pre- fumptive and indire6l ; fufficient teftimony for a particular fad is dired and pofitive evidence. I Se(i|,2, PROtJf FROM TESTIBSONY. 47 J SHALL remark one Other fallacy in this author § reafoniing, before I conclude this fe£lion, " The Indian prince," fays |ie, " who refiis'd to belieye the firft rela- " tions concerning the effe^s of froft, ^ % reaft)n€d juftly ; aiid it naturally requi- " red very flxong teftimony to engage his " aflent to facets, which arofe from a ftatc " of nature, with which "he was uimc- " quainted, and bore fo little analogy to " thoie events, of which he had had con- " ftant and uniform acperience. ^r Tho' " they were not contrary to his experience, " they w^re not conformable to it*." Here a diflintSlion is artfully fuggefted, between what is contrary to experience, and what ia r not conformable to it. The one he allows may be prov'd by teftimony, but not the other. A diftih<3:i6n, for which the author feems to have fo great ufe, it will not be impro- per to examine, * P- 179- If 48 Miracles capable of Parti.' If my reader happen to be but little ac- quainted with Mr. Hume's writings, or even with the piece here examin'd, I muft intreat him, ere he proceed a;ny farther, to give the effay an attentive perufal ; and to take notice particularly, whether in one iingle paffage, he can find any other fenfe given to the terms contrary to experience ^ but that which has not been experienced! Without this aid, I Ihould not be furprifed,' that I foUnd it difficult to convince the ju- dicious, that a man of fo much acuteneis,' one fb much a philofbpher as this author, fliould, with fUch formality, make a dif- tincSion, which not only the eflay, but the whole tenour of his philofdphical wri- tings Ihows evidently to have no meaning. Is that which is contrary to experience a fynonymous phrafe for that which implies a contradidtidn? If this were the cafe, there would be no need to recur to expe- rience for a refutation ; it would refute it- felf. SccS.a. PROOF FROM TESTIMONY, 45 felf. But 'tis equitable that the author himfelf be heard^ who ought to be the beft interpreter of his own words. " When the " fa6t attefted," fays he,^ is fuch a one, ** as ha? feldom fallen under our obferva- *' tion, here is a conteft of two oppofite ** experiences *." In this pai]&ge, not the being never experienced, but even the be^ ingfildom experienced, conftitutes an oppo-^ fiti experience. I can conceive no way but one, that the author can evade the force of this quotation ; and that is, by obtru- ding on us, iova^ new diftin(9ion between ica oppofite 2C£i'^ a contrary experience. In order to preclude fixch an attempt, I fliall once more recur to his own authority. " 'Tis no miracle that a man in feeming " good health, fhould die of a fudden." Why ? " Becaxife Hich a kind of death, " tho' more unufual than any other, " hath yet been frequently obfcrv'd to • p. 179- G " happen. jfp Miracles CAPABLE or PaftL; " happen. But 'tis a miracle that a dead " man fliould come to Ufe." Why? Not becaufe of any inconfiftency in the thing. That a body fliould he this hour' ina^ nimate, and the next animated, is no' inore inconfiftent, than the reverfe, that it fliovild be this hour animated, and thd next inanimate ; though' the one be com-? nion, and not the other. But the author himfelf anfwers the queftion : " Becaufe '■ that has never been obferv'd' in any age " or country *," All the qontrariety th^ that there is in miracles to experience, doth, by his own conceflion, confift folely in this, that they have never been obfery'd; that is, they are not cojiformable to. expe-,: rience. To our experience perfonal or de- riv'd he muft certainly mean ; to what we l;iave had accefs to learn of different ages c|nd countries. To fpeak -beyond the l^nowledge we hav^ attain'd, w9.T:^ld be^ri' * p. i8i. ^iculpi^s. Se«a.2. ^ROOF FROM TESTIMONY. J"! H^^lous. It -would be firft fuppofing a miracle, and theh inferring a contrary ex- perience, inftead of concluding from expe- rience, that the fadl is miraculous. '-' Now I infift, . that as far as regards the author's argument, a fadl perfedlly unu- fiial, or not conformable to our expe- rience, iuch as, for aught we have had accels to learn, was never obferv'd in any age or country, is as incapable of proof from teftimony, as miracles are; that, if this writer would argue confiftently, he could never, on his own principles, rejedl the one, and admit the other. Both ought to be rejedled, or neither. I would hot, by this, be thought to fignify, that there is no difference between a miracle and an extraordinary event. Tlenow that the former implies the interpofal of an in- vifible agent, which is not implied in the latter. All that I intend to affert, is, -that the author's argument ftrikes equally a- G 2 gainft •^2 Miracles; capable o.f Parti. ^ainft bocfe. Why dDth;?rfuGh interpofaJ appear to him incredible ? - Not from any incongruity he difcerns in the thing itfelfi He doth' not pretend it. But 'tis not conr formable to his experience. " A miracle,"' •fays he, " is a tranfgreffion of ;a law of nature*." But how are the laws of na- ture known to us I By experience. What is the criterion^ whereby we muft judge, whether the laws c£ nature are tranfgrefTr fid ? Solely the conformity or difconformif ty of events to our experience. This wri- ter furely will not pretend, that we can have any knowledge a^riori^ either ©f the law, or the violation. Let us then examine by his own princi- ples, whether the King of Siam, of whom ■the ftory hd^allu'des to, is related by Locke-f ^ could have fufBcient evidence, from tefti- -mony, of a faifl So contrary to his expec rience, , as the? freezing of water. He * p. i82;,iitfhajiDte. , ,. ■ . r. ,,,..,, .-.., t Eflay on human underftajidijig, book 4. chap. ij. § y. could Se&.2. 1>R00P JFROMTESTIIVIONY. 1^3 could jiift iky as much of this -event, as the author can fay of a dead man's hsiag reftor'd to life. ' Such a thing was inever * obferV'd, as far as I could learn, inr any * age or country.' If the things them-' felves too are impartially confider'd, and independently -of the notions acquir'd by us in thefe northern climates, we fliould account the firft at leaft as extraordinary as the fecond. That fb pliant a body as water fliould become hard like pavement, lb as to bear up an elephant on its furfi^ce, is as unlikely in itfelf, as that a body ina- nimate torday, ihauld be animated to- morrow. ^Nay to the Indian monarch, I muft think, that 'the firft wou'd appear xnore a miracle, miore contrary to expe- rience, than the fecond. If he "* had been acquainted with ic£ or jfrozen water, and afterward feen it become fluid, but had never feen nor learn'd, that after it was andsed, it became hard again, ''the rela- tion |'4 .. Miracles CAPABLE or Parti. tion mufl have apjpeared marvdlous, as the procefs from fluidity, tp hardnefs never had been experienced, tho' the ireverfe often had. But 1 believe nobody will queftion,, that on this fuppofition it would not have a.ppeared;quite fo flxange, as it did.. Yet this fuppofidon makes the in- fl:ance more parallel to the reftoring of the dead to life. The procefs from animate to inanimate we are all acquainted with ; and what is fiich a reftdration, but the rever-, fing of this procefs ? So Uttle reafon had the author to infinu^te, that the one was only: MO? conforrmble^ the other contrary, to experience. If there be a difference in this refpe tell a pri&ri, what will refult " fifom it." This is J^recifeiy, as if, in re- ply' to the author's objedlion from experi- enee againft the raifing of a dead man (fup- pdfe. Laiarus) to life, I fliould retort: * Nei- * thSr you, Sir, nor any who live in this century can have experience, that a dead man could hot be [reftor'd to life at the command df one divinely conamiiliori'd to give a revelation to men. This is placing nature irt a fituaition quite un- known to you, and 'tis impoffible for you to tell a priori^ what will refult from it. This therefore is not contrary to the dourfe of nature^ in cafeS where all c the circumftances are the fame. As you never in your lifetime ffaw one vefted "L; ' * with SaSt.i. PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. §f with fuch a commiffion, you are as un- experienced, as ignorant on this point, as the inhabitants of Sumatra are of the firofts in Mufcovy; you cannot there- fore reafonably, any more than they, be pofitive as to the confequences/ Should he rejoin, as doubtlefs he would, This is not taking away the difficulty ; but, like the elephant and the tortoife, in the account given by fbme barbarians of the manner in which the earth is fup- ported, it only fliifts the difficulty a ftep further back. My objedlion ftill recurs. That any man fhould be endow'd with fiich power is contrary to experience, and therefore incredible :' Should he, I fay, rejoin in this manner, I could only add, ' Pray, Sir, revife your own words ' lately quoted, and confider impartially ' whether they be. not as glaringly expos'd ' to the like reply.' For my part, I can only perceive one difference that is mate- H rial jS Miracles .CAPABiE OF Paftl* rial between the two cafes. You frankly ponfefs, that with regard .to the freezing of water, bcfides the abfolute want of ex^ perience, there would be from analogy d. prefumption againft it, which ought tck weigh with a rational Indian. I think, orl the contrary, in the cafe fuppos'd by mCj of one commiffion'd by Heaven, there is at leaffc no prefumption againft the exer- tion of fuch a rniraculous power. There is rather a prefumption in its favour. Does the author then fay, that no tefti- mony could give the King of Siam liiffi- cient evidence of the e£Fe6:s of cold on wa- ter ? No. By implication he fays the contrary : " It required very ftrong tefti- " mony." Will he fay, that thofe moft a- ftonifliing efFedbs of eledlricity lately difco- ver'd, lb entirely unanalogous to every thing before experienced, will he fay, that fuch fa6ls no reafonable man could have fufE- cient evidence from teftimony to believe f No; Se&.2. PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. ^p No. We may prefume, he will not, from his decifion in the former cafe ; and if he fliould, the common fenfe of mankind would reclaim againft his extravagance. Yet 'tis obvious to every confiderate read-r er, that his argument flrikes equally a- gainft thofe truly marvellous, as againft miraculous events ; both being alike un- conformable, or alike contrary to former experience *. Thus * I cannot forbear to obferve, tliat many of tbe principal terms cmploy'd in the eflay, are us'd in a manner extremely vagie and unphilofophical. I have remark'd the confiifion I find in the applicaticHi of the words, experience, contrariety, conformity. I might remark the fame thing of the word, wikAcle. " A miracle," 'tis fad, p. 182. in the note, " may " be accuratdy defin'd, ji transgression of a law ofna- *' ture, by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the inferpo- " fal of feme inoi/ible agent." The wati tran/gre^on inva- riably deriotes a criminal oppofition to' authority. The author's acearacy in reprcfenting God as a tranfgreffor, I have not in- deed the perfpicacity to difcem. Docs he intend, by throwing ^^wthing mMiflrous into ihe definition, to infufe into the read- H2 cr l$D Miracles CAPABLE of Parti, Thus I think I have fhown, that the 'author is chargeable with fome fallacies, in his way of managing the argument; that he all along avails himfelf of an ambiguity in the word experience ; • ■ that er a prejudice againft die thing defin'd ? But fuppofmg that tliro' inadvertency, lie had us'd the term- tratijgrefon, inftead of Jujpen/ion, which would have been both intelligible arid pro- per ; one vi'ould at leaft expeft, that the word miracle in the effay, always expreft the fenfe of the definition. But this it e- vidcndy does not. Thus in the inftance of the miracle fuppos'd {/>. 203. in the note) he calls it, in the beginning of the para- *' graph, " A violation of the ufual courfc of nature ;" but in the end, after telling us that fuch a miracle, on the evidence fuppos'd, " our prefent philofophers ought to receive for cer- *' tain," he fubjoins, (how confiflently, let the reader judge) <' and ought to fearch for the caufes, whence it might be de- " riv'd." Thus it is infinuated, that tho' a faft apparently miraculous, and perfeftly extraordinary, might be admitted by a philofopher, flill the reality of the miracle rauft be denied. For if the interpofal of the Deity be the proper folurion of the phenomenon," why recur to natural caufes ? Hence a carelels reader is infenfibly led to think, that there is fome fpecial incre- dibility in f^ch an interpofal,^ diftinf^ from its tmcommonnels. Sedr.g" PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 6l that his reafoning includes a petltio princi- />« in the bofom of it; and that, in fupporting his argument, he muft have recourfe to diftindlions, where, even him- -felf being judge, there is no difFerence. SECTION III. Mr Hume himfelf gives up his favourite argu- ment. ' A /TR Hume himfelf,' methinks I hear i. ▼ A my reader repeating with aftonilh- ment, ' gives up his favourite argument ! * To prove this point is indeed a very bold ' attempt.' Yet that this attempt is not al- Yet the author's great argument is built on that fingle circum- ftance, and places fuch an interpofition jufl; on the fame foot- ing with every event that is equally uncommon. At one time, he ufcs the word miracle to denote a bare improh ability, as will appear in the fixth fe&ion : at aiiodier, abfurd and miraculous axe, with him, fynonymous terms ; fo are alfo the miracu- lous nature of an event, and its ahfolute itnpoffibility. Is this the ftyle of 3, reafoner, or of a declaimer i together 6z Miracles capable of Parti: together fo arduous, as at firft hearings he will poffibly imagine, I hope, if favour 'd a while with his attention^ fully to con- vince him. If to acknowledge, after all, that ,there may be miracles, which admit of proof from human teftimony ; if to ac- knowledge, that fuch miracles ought to be receiv'd, not as probable only, but as ab- foluteiy certain; or, in other words, that the proof from human teftimony may: be fuch, as that all the contrary uniform ex- perience, fliould not only be overbalan- ced, but, to ufe the author's expreffion, fliould be annihilated; if fuch acknow- ledgments as thefe, are fubverfive of his own principles ; if by making thejn, he abandons his darling argument j this ft range part the effayift evidently adls. " I own," thefe are his words, " there " may poffibly be miracles, or violations " of the uftial courfe of nature, of fuch a " kind as to admit of proof from human " teftimony, Sedl/S* PROOF j^ROM TESTIMONY. 63 ** teftimony, tho' perhaps" (in this he is mo- deft enough, he avers nothing j perhaps) " it will be impoflible to find any fuch in " all the records of hiftory." To this de- claration he fiibjoins the following fuppo- fition: " Suppofe all authors, in all lan- " guages, agree, that from the ift of Ja- " nuary 1 600, there was a total darknefs " over the whole earth for eight days; " luppofe that the tradition of this extra- " ordinary event, is ftill ftrong and lively " among the people; that all travellers, " who return from foreign countries, " bring us accounts of the fame tradition, " without the leaft variation or contradic- *' tion : 'tis evident, that our prefent philo- " fophers, inftead of doubting of that " fadl, ought to receive it for certain, and " . ought to fearch for the caufes, whence " it might be deriv'd *." Could one imagine, that the perfon who * p. 203. in the note. had ^4 Miracles capable of Parti. had made the above acknowledgment, a perfon too who is juftly. allow'd by all who are acquainted with his writings, to poiTeis uncommon penetration and philofo- phical abilities, that this were, the fame in- dividual, who had fo Ihort while before! affirm'd, that " a miracle," or a violation of the ufiial courfe of nature, " fupported by any human teftimony, is more pro- perly a fubjedl of derrlion than of argu- ment *;" who had infilled, that" it is notrequifite, in order to rejedl the fadl, to be able accurately to difprove the te- ftimony, and to trace its falfehodd'; that fiich an evidence carries falfehood on the very face o£ it -f- ;" that " we need but oppofe even to a cloud of witnefles, the abfolute impoflibihty, or," which is all one, " miraculous nature of the events, which they relate ; that this in the eyes of all reafonable people, will alone be * p. 194. f ib. " regarded Se&, which in this cafe is equi- valent, and the conclufion will run thus : Here is a proof from experience, ivhich is Jti- ■perior to as entire a proof ft&M experience, as can pejfibiy be imagind. This deduction rfrofla the author's words, the reader will perceive, is ftriftly logical. What the meaning of it is, I leave to himfelf to explain. ^'* What hafh been above dedviced, how much foever it be accounted, is not all that is implied in the conceflidn made by the author. He farther fays, that the mira- culous fa(5l fo attefted, ought not only to bereceiv'd, but to be re,cei\'d. far certain, is it not enough, Sir, that you have Ihown .that your inofl full, ihoft direft, moft per- it&. argument may be overcome- will no-^ thing fatisfy you now but its deftrudlion? One would imagine, that you. had con- jur'(i Se^.3« ^RCM>F FRdM TESTIMO?*Y. 69 pir d vip this demon, by whofe irrefiftible arm ycrti propos'd to give a mortal Mow to rdS^On,- and render fcepticifm trium- phant, (that ydu had conjur'd him up, I ikf) for no other purpofe, but to ihow with what facility you could lay him. To be ifCTfetis, does not this author remember, that he had ^ftener than once laid it down •as a maxim, That when there is proof a- gainft proof, we muft incline to the fup&- rior, ftill with a diminution of a0urance, in proportion to the force of its antago^ nift * ? But when a fa(5l is received for in&rtain, there can be no fertfible diminu- tion of affuf ance, fuch diminution always implying fome doubt and unceHainty. Gonfequently the general proof from expe- rience, xhe> as entire as any argument from experience can pofllbly be imagin'd, is not only lurmounted, but is really in com- parifon as nothing, or, in Mr Hume & •p. 178. i8q- phraft, 70 Miracles capable of Paftl: phrafe, undergoes annihilation, when ba- lanced with the particular proof from te- fUmony. Great indeed, ; it mufl be ac- knowledged, ii5 th^ force pf truth. This Gonclufion, on the principles I haye been endeavouring to eftablilh, has nptl^ng in it, but what is conceivable and juft; but on the principles of the effay, which de- rive all the force of teftimony from expe- rience, ferves only to confound the under- ftanding, and to involve the fubjedl ia midnight darknefs .' • 'Tis therefore manifeft, that either this author's principles condemn his own me- thod of judging, with -regard to miracu- lous fads; or that his method of judging fubvertshis principles, and is a tacit de- fertion of them. Thus that impregnable fortrefs, the afylum of infidelity,' which he fo lately gloried in having ered|ed, i,s in a moment abandon'd by him, as a place untei^able, SEC^ Se(ft^4' PROOF. FROM TESTIMONY. JX S E C T I O N IV. There is no peculiar prefumption againft fuch miracles as are /aid to have been ivr ought infuppoft ofreligiotit IS it then fo, that the decifive afgument, the effayift flatter'dhimfelf he had difr- covered *, which with the wife and learn- ed, was to prove an everlaftifig check to all kinds of fuperflitious delufion, and wou'd confequently be ufefiil, as long as the world endures; is it fo, that this boailed argument hath in fadl little or no influence on the difcoverer himfelf ! But this author may well be excus'd. He can- not be always the metaphyfician. He caniiot foar inceflantly in the clouds. Such conftatit elevation fuits not the lot of hu- manity. He muft fometimes, whether he will or not, defcend to a level with other •p. 174. people, 72 Miracles capable of Parti* people, and fall into the humble track of common fenfe. One thing however he is refolv'd on : If he cannot by me- taphyfic fpeils filehce the moft arrogant bigotry and iuperllition ; he will at any rate, though for this purpofe he fhbu'd borrow aid from what he hath no liking to, trite and popular topics ; he wjU at a- ny rate free himfelf from their impertinent folicitations. There are accordingly two principles in hurnan nature, by which he accounts for all the. relations, that have ever been in the world, concerning miracle^, Theie principles are, the pajtonfor the mafuelhuSi and the religious affe^ion * ; againft either of which fingly, the philofopher, he fays, ought ever to be on his guard ; but incom- parably, more fo, when both happen to be in ftridt confederacy together. " For if " the fpirit of religion join itfelf to th^ ' *p. 184. 185. « love Se6l.4. fHOOF FROM TESTIMONY. ^3 " iove of Wonder, thefe is an end of com- mon feiife; and human teftimony in " thefe circumftances lofes all pretenfions " to authority *." Notwithftanding this ftrong affirmation, there is reafon to fu- ipe6l that the author is not in his heart, fo great an enemy to the love of wonder, as he affedls to appear. No man can make a greater conceffion in favour of .the w-on- derfiil, than he hath done in the palTage quoted in the preceding fedion. No man was ever fonder of paradox, and, in theo- retical fubje^s, of every notion that is remote from fentiments univerfally re- ceiv'd. This love of paradoxes, he owns hiihfelf, that both his enemies and his friends reproach him with -f*. There muft' furely be fome foundation for fb univerfal a cenfiire. If therefore, in refjpeil of the paffion for the marvellous, he differ from other peof»le, the difference arifeth from a * p. 18/. f De^cation to the four dilTertations, K particular 74 Miracles capable of Paftl. particular delica:cy in this gentleman, which makes him naufeate even to won'- der with the croud. He is of that fingu- lar turn that where every body is ftruck with confternatiori, he can fee nothing Wondrous in the leaft ; at the fame time he difco vers prodigies, where no foul but himfelf ever dreamt that there were any. We may therefore reft aflured of it, that the author might be conciliated to the love of -wonder, provided the Jpirit of religion he kept at a diftance, againft which he hath unluckily contradled a mortal antipathy, againft which he is refolv'd to wage eter- nal war. When he but touches this iiib- jedt, he lofeth at once his philofbphic compofure, andfpeaks with an acrimony unufual to him on other occafions. Some- thing of this kind appears from the cita- tions already made. But if thefe fhou'd not fatisfy, I fhair produce one or two loore, which cannot fail. Therq is a fe- cond Se6l.4' PROOF PROM TESTIMONY. >} ^ cond fuppofition the author makes, of a miraculous event, in a certain manner cir- cumftanced and attefted, which he de- clares, and I think with particular proprie- ty, that he would " not have the leaft in- clination to believe *." At his want of in- clination the reader will not be fiirprifed, when he learns, that this fuppofed miracle is concerning a refurreBicfn; an event which -bears too ftrong a refemblance both to the dodh-ine afid miracles of holy writ, not to alarm a modern Pyrrhonift. To the above declaration he fubjoins, " Bvit fhou'd this " miracle be afcrib'd to any new fyftem " of religion, men in iall ages have been " fo much impos'd on by ridiculous Jtories " of that kind,, that this very circum- -" ftance would be a full proof of a cheat, " and fufficient with all men of fenfe, not " , only to make them rejedl the fad, but ■" even rejeB it ivithout further examina- * p. 204. in the note. .-•- K 2 " tion." 7^ Miracles capable of Parcl> *• fim." Again, a little after, " As the vior ■" lations of truth are more common, in " the teftimony concerning religious mi'- " racks, than in that concerning any " other matter of fa£■• Never did the paflion of an inflamed o- rator, .or the intemperate zeal of a religio- jiift, carry him further againfl his adver- -fary, than this, man of fpecul^tion is car- ried by his prejudice, againfl religion. ■Demagogues and bigots have often warn'd :,the people againft liftening to the argu- ments of an envied and therefore detefted rival, left by his fophiftry they ihould be feduced feduced into th^ maft/ fatal errors. The fame part this author, a philofopher^ a fceptic, a difpaffionate inquirer after tputh, as furely he chufeth to be accounted, noW •a(5ls in favour of infidelity. He i thinks it not fafe to give' religion even a hearing. Nay fo: ftrange a turn have matters taken of late with the managers i of this contro- verfy, that it is now the freethinker who preaches implicit faith; 'tis the infi- del who warns us of the danger of con- fulting reafon. Beware, fays he, . I admo- nifh you, of inquiring into the flrength of the plea, or of bringing it to the deceit- ful teft of reafon; for *' thofe who will be " fo SILLY as to examine the aflPair by *^ that medium, and feek particular flaws " in the tejiimony, ai-e almoft fure to be " xonfounded *." That religiqn is con- cern'd in the matter, 'is reckon'd by thefc fages fufficient evidence of impofture. The ^•- * p. 197. in the note. '•'-*'■ <•*" K''-" ' proofs ^8 Miracles CAPABLE OP Paftiv proofs Ihe offets in her own defence, we are told by this candid judge, ought to be rejedled, z.nd rejected njuithout examination. The old way of fcmtiny and argument muft now be fet afide, having been at length difcover'd to be but a bungling, a tedious, and a dangerous way at beft. What then fliall we fubftitute in its place ? The effayift hath a moft admirable expe- dient. A fhorter and furer method he re- commends to us, the expeditioiis way of refolution. ' Form,' fays he, ' « general 'resolution, never to lend any atten- * tion 'to tejiimonies or fads urged by religion^ ' ivith nvhatever fpecious pretext they may ' be cover' d.' I had almoft congratulated Mr Hume, and our enlighten'd age, on this happy invention, before I refle(5led, that tho' the application might be, new, the expedient itfelf, of refolving to be deaf to argument, was very ancient, having been often,, with great Se6li4' PROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 79 great fuccefs employ'd againfl atheifls and heretics, and warmly recommended by Bellarmine and Scotus, and moft others of that bright fraternity the fchoolmen : Perfons, I acknowledge, to whom it would be difficult, perhaps in any other inftance, to find a refemblance in my ingenious op- ponent. I'm afraid that after flich a declaration, I muft not prefume to confider mylelf as arguing with the author, who hath, in fo peremptory a manner, refolv'd to attend to nothing that can be faid on this fub- jedl, in oppofition to his theory. * What •judgment he has,' toufehis own ex- preflion, ' he has renounced by principle, ' in thefe fublime and myflerious fiib- * je6ls *.' If however it fliould prove the fate of thefe papers, the forbidding title of them notwithftanding, to be at any time hohour'd with the perufal of fome infidel, ' * p. 185. not 86 Miracles CAPABLE OF ?afti. not indeed fo rivette'd in unbelief as the efTayift, I would earneftly intredt fuch reader, in the folemn ftyle of Mr Hume, " To lay his Iiand upon his heart, and " after ferious eonfideration declare *," If any of the patrons of religion had afted this part, and warn'd people not to try by argument the metaphyfical fubtleties of the adverfaries, affirming, that ' if they were * MAD enough to examine the affair by that ' medium, and feek particular flaws in the * reafohing, they were almoft fure to be con- * founded ; that the only prudent method ' was, to form a general resolution, * never to lend any attention to what was ' advanced on the oppofite fide, however ^ fpecibus ;' would not thefe gentlemen have t-aifed great fubjeft of triumph from this condufl? would it not have been con" ftru'd into a tacit convidlion of the weak- nefs of our caufe, which we were afraid * p. 206, of Se(a.4- PROQF FROM TESTIMONY. Si 2|.. FROOF FROM TESTIMONY. 8^ fame principle, which will make him ac- quiefce in evidence lefs than fvifiicientin the one cafe, will make him requii-e le^Jr" dence more than fufficient in the other;. Before then the remark of the author can be of any ufe in dire(5ling our judg- anent, as to the evidence of miracles at- tefted, we muft confider whether the ori- ginal tenets of the witnefles ought to have biafled their minds \n favour of the mi- racles, or in oppojition to them. . If the' former was the cafe, the teftimony is fo iriuch the lefs to be regarded ; if the lat- ter, fo much the more. Will it fatisfy on tliis head to acquaint us, that the prejudi- ces of the witneffes muft have favour'd the miracles, fimce they were zealous pro- moters of the dodrine, in fupport of which thofe miracles are faid to have beenperform'd? To anfwer thus isrou'd be to mifunderftand the point. The que- ftion is, Was this doarine the faith 't3f the 86 "Miracles CAPABLE OF Parti. the. witrieffes, before they faw, or fancied they faw the miracles ? If it was, I agree with him. Great, very great allowance mufl: be made for the prejudices of educa- tion, for principles, early perhaps, careful- ly, and deeply rooted in their minds, and for the religious affedlion founded in thefe principles; which allowance muft always, derogate from the weight of their teftimo- ny. But if the faith of the witnefles flood originally in oppofitioh to the dodlrine at- tefted by the miracles ; if the only account that can be given of their conVerfion, is the convidlion which the miracles produ- ced in them ; it mull be a prepoflerous way of arguing, to derive their convidlion from a religious zeal, vv^hich would at firfl obfUnately withftand, and for fome time hinder fiich convidlion. On the contrary, that the evidence arifihg frorii miracles perform'd in proof of a dodlrine difbe- liev'd, and confequently hated. before, did iu Sed.4- PROOF FROM testimoMy. 87 in fadl furmount that obftacle, and con- quer.all the oppofition arifing thence, is a very.ftrong prefumption in favour of that evidence: juft as ftrong a prefumption in its favour, .as it would have been againftit, had all their former zeal, and principles, and prejudices, co-operated w^ith the evi- dence, whatever it was, in gaining an en- tire affent. r. . Hence there is the greateft difparity in this refpe^^ a difparity which deierves to be particularly attended, to, betwixt the evidence of miracles perform'd in proof of a religion to be eftablifh'd, perform'd in contradiSlion to opinions generally receiv'd ; and the evidence of miracles perform'd in fupport of a religion already eftablifli'd, and in confirmation of opinions generally re- ceiv'd. Hence alfp the greateft difparity betwixt the miracles recorded by the evan- gelifts, and thpfe related by Marianaj Bede, or any monkifli hiftorian. There S8 Miracles CAPAB-LE of PartL There is then no peculiar prefumption againft religious miracles merely as fiich; if in certain circumftances. there is a pre- iiimption againfl; them, the prefmnption ,arifeth folely from the circumftances, in- somuch that, in the oppofite circumftances, it is as ftrongly in their favour. S E C T I O N V; There is a peculiar prefumpti&n infwaour of fmb. . miracles as are /aid to hm)e been : nvrought infupport of religion. IN this fe£lion I prpppfe to CQ^fide^ the reyerfe of the queftion treated in the former. In the fprmer I prpv'd that there is no peculiar prefumption againft religi- ous miracles ; I now inquire .whether there be any in their favour. The queftion is important, and intimately conneded with the fubjed. The Se6l.J. f^OPP FilOM TEiSTIM'OBrY. 8^ t; The bbljdeft infi4el will not cjeny, that the immortality ofthefo^ij, aj&itureand eternal ,ftate,. and the conncdlion of our happinefs or mifery in that ftajte, witk our present good or bad cpndudl:, not to men' tion the doiSaines concerning the divine unity and perfe<3:ions, are tenets which car-r ry Ao abfurdity in them. They may be true for aught he knows. He doth not believe them, not becaufe they are incre- dible in themfelves, but becatufe he hath not evidence of their truth. He pretends not to difprove them, nor does, he /think the taik incumbent on him. He only pleads, that before he can yield them his affent, they mull be prov'd; t - Now, as whatever jis^poiTible, maybe iuppos'd, let us luppofe' that the dogmas above mentaotieds are all infelUble truths ; and let the unbeliever fay, if^hcth^r he can conceive an object worthier of the divine interpoial, than, to reveal thefe traths to M mankind j 90 Miracles CAPABLE Of PattK mankind; and to enforce them in fuch a manner, as may give them a fuitable in- fluence on the heart and life. Of all the inhabitants of the earth, man is incompa- rably the nobleft. Whatever therefore re- gards the interefl: of the human fpecies, is a grander concern, than what regards ei- ther the inanimate or the brute creation. If man was made, as is doubtlefe not im- poffible, for an after flate of immortality ; whatever relates to that immortal ftate, or may conduce to prepare him for the frui- tion of it, muft be immenfely fuperior to that which merely concerns the tranfient enjoyments of the prefent life. How fub? lime then is the objedl which religion, and religion only, exhibits as the ground of fupernaturaL interpafitions ! It is the interefl: of man, a reafo:nable and moral agent, the only being in this lower world which bears in his foul the image of his maker; not the interefl of an individual, but Se£l:|. PROOF FROM TESTIMONY, ^jf but of the kind ; not for a limited duration, but for eternity : an objedl at leaft in one refpedt adequate to the majefty of God. ) Does this appear to the effayifl too much like arguing a priori, of which I know he hath a deteftation? It is juft fuch an argument, as, prefiippofing " the xnofl rational principles of Deifm, refults from thofe maxims concerning intelligent catifes, and their operations, which are &)unded in general experience, and which uniformly lead us to expedl, that the end •will be proportionate to the means. The Pagan's of Rome had notions of their divi- liities infinitely inferior to the opinions concerning God, which in Chriftian coun- tries are maintain'd even by thofe, who, for diftin6lion's fake, are called Deists. Yet fuch of the former as had any juftnefs erf tafte, were offended with thofe poets, who exhibited the celeflials on flight occa- iions, SiEid for trivial purpoies, interfering 5/3 Ml K A' C L ES C A F A E L Er o I PajEtT. in the ail&irs of men. Why? Becaiaife iueh an exhibition fhock'd all the ptitl- ciples of probability; It^ had not thai r€- rifimilittide which is abfokitely necaflary to render fiftion agreeable. Acctwdingl^r it is. a precept, with relation to the machind^ ry of the daranta, given by one who Was bc^ a critic and a poet. That a god mnil jiever be introduced, unlefs to accomplifll fome inoport^nt ddfi^, • w^ch - could jaot be otherwifft effetEkuated \ The fowodar tion Q'f this ridle, which is that of m.^ar' gurherit, is therefore one of thofe indifp«t» table principles^ which, acre found every ■where^ among^the earlaiefl: reiults of ^per oenee. THUS it appears, that from the digirir ty of the end, there arifeth; a pesEuliaiE fnrc- fomption in favoiJr of fuch imraEcles, as *' Ncc deusinterfit, riiTi dignus viniEce nodus Ineidem, ' '-•■ • ' ■'- Hon AT. " are Se^C PROOF FROM TESTIIHOKY. p| are iaid to haye been iniought iu iazpport cf rbligioja* , i! , . . SECTION yi. Hiqiaryinto the jkeimng and frdpfieff of ont ■ i^Mr^HuTKe's favourite maxima. TH£S.£ is a. Koethod tnsl^ cunous, &[g>- gefkd by the aotlior^ fot extrica^ tatjg the mind, ftiouidl the evid^ce £;ioin tEftiraotty be fo gfeat, that its falfe- Imciod mig^t^ as he terms it, be accfouxifted miEactdovs. In this j^zzliag cafe, when ftmsm is lb befet with ^i^aclea, that he is tmder a neceffilty of admitting one, he miiflr always take care it be the finalleft; for it is an axiom in this writef^s dialec- tic, That the probability of the faSl is in tbeinmerfe mtio (^ th^, quantity of mrctcte there is in it. *' I wtigb," fays he, " the *' one miracle aigaiaft th»e othery and ac- " cording 94 MiRACLfcs CAPABLE oT Parti. ". cording to the fuperiority which 1 difco- " ver, I pronounce my decifion, and al- *' ways reject the greater miracle *." Now, of this method, which will no douht be thought by many to be Yery in- genious, and which appears to the cffayift both very momentous and very perfpicu- ous, I own, I am not able to difcbver ei- ther the reafonabl,enefs or the ufe. Firft, I cannot fee the reafbnablernefs; ' A miraicle,' to adopt his own definition, * implies the tranlgreflion,' or rather the iufpenfion, * of fomeJaw of nature; and * that either by a particular volition of * the Deity, or by the interpofal of fome ' invifible agent -f-.' Now, as I fliould think, from the principles laid dowin in the preceding fedion, that it w:ould be for no trifling pijrpofe, that the laws of nature wotil4 be fufpended, and '* p» l82v + lb. inihe aote. citheif Se .which of two is the greater imrable/ -jAs to the author, I can- SOC'^d that he has favour'd. us with any light, in fo a&mjjortant and- fij critical ^a qieilioii. Have. we hot then ibme reafon toafekd, that the talk will niot be lefs dif«- &iait to furnHh us with a mea/ure, by vdiicfa. we din^dcteraaine the magnitude of i&iiracles ; than to provide us with a ba- imee^ by whse^^ we can aftertain the iffsi|^t of teftinflpnies and experiences ? ■;If leaving the Speculations of the efTayift, we ftiail, in brder to be affiftcd on this fubj€<9:^ recur to his example, and manner ci" judging; let us coniider the miracle which wAs* recited in the third fedlion, and which he declares, would, on the evi- N dencc 5»8, ^jyil RAGLES CAPitBliE OF^ ParfeL deBQCiPf, fujch .teflimony as he fuppofes, not. only be proba'ble, but certain. For piy part, 'tis not in my pois/^rer: to conceive a- greater miracle -thantl^at is. The whole univerfe is afFedled by, it; the earth, tfcff fun, the moon, theftaxs. .. The mofl in^ variable laws of nature with which we, are acquainted, even thofei which regulate the motions of the heavenly bodies, and difpenfe daiiknefa and light to worlds, are violated. I appeal to the author; himiel^t whether itaftuld be called a greater, .c^er ven fo great a miracle, that all the writers^ . at that tinoe, , or even all mankind, had: bef n feiz'd with a new fpecies of epidejiaiT cal delirium, which had given xife to this ftrange illvifion. But in this the author is remarkably unfortunate, that the pr^jr ciples by which he in fa(^ regulates; l^is judgment and belief, are often the reverfe of thofe whigh . he eudcayoujf^.^ tQ_ eftg-l^lifh iii Jiis theory. , J.^^^^.i^i^xui- SnAL,!* Sedt.6. PROOF FROM TESTIMO^JY. ^9 I Shall I hazard a conjefture? It is, thai die word miracle, as thus us'd by the au- thor, is lis'd in a vague and improper ienfe, as a fynonymous term for impro- bable \ and that believing the Ze/}, and re- jecting the ^r^^/^r miracle:, denote fimply believing what i^ leaft, and rejedling what is inofiimprobabk] or ftill more explicitly, be- lieving what we think mqfl worthy of belief, and rejedling what we think leaji ivofthy. I am aware, on a fecond perufal of tlie au- thors words, that my [talent in gtieflihg may be juftly queftion'd. He hath in ' eflFedt told us himfelf what he means. " When any one," fays he, " tells me, "• that he faw a dead man reftor'd to life, "' I immediately confider with myfelf, "^ whether it be more probable, that this " perfon ftiould either deceive or be de- "^' ceiv'd, or that the fadl he relates, lliould '*- really have happen'd. I weigh the one " mrflf/^ againft the other ; and according N 2 "to -.^to the faperiority wlitefei .1 diftovep, I " pronounce i»y; decifion,^ and alway& *S* " je(5l the greater miracle. If the falfe* IV hood of his teftimony wotdd be m&f6 " miraculous- than the event which he re- " lates ; then, and not till; then, can he " pretend to command my_ belief or opi-i " nion *." At firft indeed one is ready , to exclaim, What a ftratige revolution is here ! The • belief of miracles then^ even: by Mr Hume's account, is abfolutely ine- vitable. Miracles themfelves too, fa far from being impoffible, or even extiSiordi"- nary, are the commoneft things in nature; fo common, that w^en any miraculous fa(5l is attelled to us, we are equally under a neceffity of believing a miracle, whether we believe the fad, or deny it. The whole difiference between the eflayift and us, is at length reduced to -xki^ fingle point. Whether greater or fmaller miracles * p. i8j. are afe ihtatkd to the preference. This itif^ ftery however vam&e^on a neai^er inrpec- tkm-.- Thellyle, we find, is figurative, and the atithbf is all the while amtijGilg both his readers arid himfelf with ah tintt- ftial application of afatniliar term. What Is Caffd weighing of prababilities ih. one fefite^ce, is weighiilg of /BzV^f /pls^fnre he may derive from it. PA:.RT A D I S S E R T A^T I ON ON MIRACLES. PART II. The miracles on which the beHef of Chriftianity is founded, are fufEciently attefted. SECTION I. 7%epe it fia prefumption^ ar'tfmg from human nature, again/i the miracles faid to have been -wrought in proof of Chri/lianity. FRoM what hath been evinced in the fourth and fifth fedlions , of the former part, with regard to reli- gion in general, two corollaries are clearly deducible Seft. I. The miracles of^ Gfc. loc deducible in favour of Chriftianity. One is, That the prefumption arifing from the dignity of the end, to fay the leaft of it, can in no religion be pleaded with greater advantage, than in the Chriftian. The other is. That the prefumption arifing from the religious affedlion, inflead of weaken- ing, corroborates the evidence of the go- fpel. The faith of Jefus was promulgated, and gained ground, not with the affift- ance, but in defiance, of alL the religious zeal and prejudices of the times. In order to invalidate the fecond corol- lary, it will pofiibly be urged, that profc- slytes to a rehgious fyftem, different from that wherein they were educated, may be gain'd at firft ; either by addrefs and elo- quence, or by the appearances of uncom- mon fandlity, and rapturous fervours of devotion ; that if once people have com- sBienced profelytes,. the tranfition to enthu- O fiafm io6 The miracles of the Part II. fiafin is almoft unavoidable ; and that en- thufiafm will fully account for. the utmoft pitch both of credulity and falfenefs. Admitting that a few converts might be made by the aforefaid arts, it is fubverfive of all the laws of probability, to imagine, that the ftrongeft prepolTeffions, fortified with , that : vehement abhorrence which contradidlion in religious principles' rarely fails to excite, fhould be fo eafily vanquifli'd in multitudes. Befides, the very pretext of fupporting the dodlrine by miracles, if a falfe pretext, would of neceffity do un- •fpeakable hurt to the caufe. The pretence of miracles will quickly attra<5l the atten- tion of all to whom the new dodrine is pubhihed. The influence which addrefs and eloquence, appearances of fandity and fervours of devotion, would otherwife have had, however great, will be fuperfe- ded by the confideration of what is infi- nitely more ftriking and decifiye. The miracles Sed. I. GOSPEL FULLY ATTESTED. 10/ miracles will therefore firft be canvafled, and canvafled with a temper of mind the moll unfavourable to convidlion. 'Tis not folely on the teflimony of the evange- lifts that Chriftians believe the gofpel, tho' that teftimony appears in all refpedls fuch as merits the higheft regard ; but it is on the fuccefs of the gofpel ; it is on the tefti- mony, as we may juftly call it, of the numberlefs profelytes that were daily made to a religion, oppofing all the religi- ous profeflions then in the world, and ap- pealing, for the fatisfadtion of every body, to the vifible and miraculous interpofition of Heaven in its favour. The witnelTes confider'd in this light, and in this light they ought to be confider'd, will be found more than ' a fufBcient number :' and tho' perhaps there were few of them, what the author would denominate ' men of educa- - tion and learning ;' yet, which is more eflential, they were generally men of good O 2 fenfe, io8 The miracles of the Partll. fenfe, and knowledge enough to fecure tliem againft all delufion, as to thofe plain fads for which they gave their teftimo- ny; men who (in the common accepta- tion of the words) neither did, nor could de- rive to themfelves either interefl or honour by their atteftations, but did evidently en- danger both. It deferves alfo to be remember'd, that there is here no contradidlory teftimony, notwithflanding that both the founder of our religion and his adherents were from the firft furrounded by inveterate enemies, who never ' efteem'd the matter too incon- * iiderable to deferve their attention or re- ' gard ;' and who, as they could not want the means, gave evident proofs that they wanted not the inclination to detedt the fraud, if there had been any fraud to be detedled. They were jealous of their own reputation and authority, and forefaw but too clearly, that the fucccfs of Jefus would give Se Since * Perhaps it will be pleaded, that the working of miracles was confider'd by the leaders in tlie refoi-mation as a Popifli ar- tifice, and as therefore- worthy of being difcardcd with the other abufes which Popery had introduced. That this was not the light in which miracles were view'd by Luther, who juflly poffeffes the firft place in the lift of reformers, is evident from the manner in which he argues againfl Muncer, the apofUe of the Anabaptifls. This man, without ordination, had affum'd tlie office of a Chriftian pallor. Againft this condudt Luther re- monftrates, as being, in his judgment, an ufurpation of the fa- cred ftrnftion. " Let him be aflced," fays he, " Who made " him a teacher of religion? If he anfwers, God ; let him " prove it by a vifible vurack : for 'tis by fuch figns that God " declares himfelf, when he gives an extraordinary miffion." When this argument was afterward retorted on himfelf by the Romanifts, who defir'd to know how his own vocation, original- ly limited and dependent, had become not only unlimited, but quite independent of the hierarchy, from which he had receiv'd it J his reply was. That the intrepidity, with which he had been enabled to brave fomany dangers, and ^&fuccefs with wbicii bis enterprife had been crown'd, ought to be regarded as miracu. U a lous: 156 The MIRACLES OF THE Part IL Since the world began, there hath not appear'd a more general propenfion to the xvildeft fanaticifm, a greater degree of credulity in every claim to the illapfes of the Holy Spirit, or a more thorough con- tempt of all eftabUfh'd modes of womiip, than appear'd in this ifland about the middle of the laft century.- 'Tis aftonifli- ing, that when the minds of men were in- toxicated with enthufiafm; when every lous : And indeed mofl: of his followers were of this opinion. But whether this opinion was erroneous, or whether the argu- ment againfl: Muncer was conclufive, 'tis not my bufinefs to in- quire. Thus much is evident from the ftory : firfl, That this reformer, far from rcjefling miracles as a Romilh trick, acknowledged, that in fome religious queffions, they are the only medium of proof ; fecondly. That notwithftanding this, he never attempted, by a fliow of miracles, to impofe on the fen- fes of his hearers ; (if they were dcceiv'd in thinking that his fuccefs and magnanimity were miraculous, 'twas not their fenfes, tut their nnderftanding that was deceiv'd) laflly, That the Ana- baptifts themfelves, tho' perhaps the mofl: outrageous fanatics that ever exifled, did not pretend to the poiyer of working miracles, ti — Sleidanlib. ;, LatL De votis monaji, &c. Efift. adFrid. ■Sax, Ducsm- c-f- Chjtraum " have been in France about that time?, " have heard ; and whofe vigilance, pene^ " tration, adivity, and extenfive intelli*- " gence, have been much talk'd of; fince * E- 195. this Sea.4. GOSPEL FULLY ATTESTED. 187 ** this magiftrate, who by the nature of *^ his office is alnioft abfolute, was inveft- ** ed with full powers on purpofe to fup- " prefs thcfe miracles, and frequently fe» ** ?ied and examin'dthe witneffes and fub- " je6ls of them ; though he could never ** reach any thing fatisfadlory againft *' them *." As to the only remaining cir-- eumftanec, their being * perform'd in a * public manner^ and in a celebrated part * of the world,' this concurred alfb. They were -perform'd, we are told, " in a learns- '' ed age, and oti the moft eminent theatre ^' that is now in the world -f :" befides, **^ twenty-two raElors or cures of Paris, " with infinite earneftn^fs, prefled the ♦' Archbifliop, an enemy to the Janfenifts, " to examine thofe miracles, which they *' affert to be kixowfii to the whole world, *' and indifpiitably certain p" • p. 197. in tie note. f p. 19J. J p. 196. in the note. A a 2 Thus i88 --The MIRACLES OF THE Part if. ' Thus the eflayift hath laid us under the difagreeable neceffity of inferring, that he is either very raih in his general affertions, or ufeth very great amplification in his particular narrations. Perhaps in both inferences, we fhall find, upon inquiry, tliat there is fome truth. In his Hijiory of Great Britain, he gives us notice *, that he addrefTed himfelf " to a more diftant " pofterity, than will ever be reach'd by *' any local or temporary theology." Why did he not likewife, in writing the EJfays^ entertain this grand idea ? It would have been of ufe to him. It would have pre- vented his falling into thofe . inconfiften^ cies, which his too great attention and an- tipathy to what he calls 2l local or tempora- ry theology, only could oecafion; and which, when that theology^ according to his hy- pothefis, fliall be extin6l, and when all Qur religious controverfies fhall be forgot- • James I. chap. ^, ^€t.4. GOSPEL FULLY ATTESTED. iSg teni rauft appear unaccountable and ridi- culous. People* will not then have the means of difcovering, ; what is fo obvious to us his cotemppraries, that he only af- iumes the appearance of an advocate for ibme miracles, which are difbeliev'd by the generality of Proteftants, his country- men, in order, by the comparifon, to vi- lify the miracles of facred writ, "wrhich arQ acknowledged by them. _ BuT.to defcend to particulars, I fliall begin with confidering thofe miracles, for which the authqr is indebted to the an- cient Pagans, Firfl, in order to convince us, how eafy a matter it is for cunning and impudence to impofe by falfe niirales on the creduhty of barbarians, he introduces the ftory of Alexander of Pontus *. The juftnefs of the account he gives of this im- poftor from Lucian, I fliall not difpute. • p. 188. ???. . . r But; iga .The MiRACL^sior THE P^rtlD But that itmay appear, how little the Chri^ ftian religion is afiedled by this relatioti^ notwithftanding fome infinuations he hath intermixt with it, I fliall make the follow- ing remarks. It is of iinportance to know, what was the profefEon of this once fo famous, tho* now forgotten Paphlagonian. Was he a p^ublifher of ftrange gods? No*. Wa& he the founder of a new fyftem in religioH? No. What was he then ? He was no o- ther titan a profefTed fortune-teller. What ■ ■ , -. - "" • The learned and judicious author of th§ Obferve^ms on the comer fion and apofllejhip of Saint Paul, hath inadvertently faid of Alexander,^ that hd introduced a new god into Pontus. The truth is, he only exhibited zxeptadniiioxiQi JS/ktlgfiUif ^ we]l-kn,own deity in thofe parts, to whom he gave indoed the xew name Glycou. In this there was nothing unfuitable to the genius of the my diology. Accoriiinjgly, we do not find,' that either the jniefts, or^e people, were in die Icaft aJarm'd Ibr.the religioa of the country, or ever charged AleXfflider ,a$ an innavator in reli^ous mat|ers. On the contrary,, the greati eft enemies he had to encounter, Were not the religionifts, but the latimdinarians; were Sfcd'.4' CJQSPEL FITLLY ATTEST £D^ tgt were the arts by whick he canied on this gainful trade ? The effayift jufU y itmarks, \^% * it was a wife policy in him, to lay * the firft fcene of his impoftures in a eoun* * tscy, where the people were exti*eineJyignOr * rant and ftupid, and ready to fwallow the ' groUeft delufion.' For, " had Alexander " fix'd his refidence at Athens, the philo-* " fbphers of that renown'd mart of learn- *' ing, had immediately fpread thro' tha " whole Roman empire their fenle of the "matter; which, being , fupported by fo " great authority, and difplay'd by all the " force of reafon and eloquence, had en- " tirely Qpen'd the eyes of mankind/' I fliall beg leave to remark another inftance qfgQod policy in him. He attempted not to gain the veneration of the multitude by Qppofing^ but by adopting their religious prejudices. His whole plan of deceit was fovmded in the eflablifhed fupid-ftition. TThe aixthor himfelf will acknowledge, it would iga -The MIRACLES OF THE Part IT. would have been extreme folly in him to have adVed otherwife : and all the world, I believe, will agree in thinking, that, in that calfe, he could not h'ave had the JTmall- eft probability of fuccefs. What were the miracles he wrought? I know of none, tmlefs we will dignify with that name, fbme feats of legerdemain, perform'd moft- ly by candle-light ; whidh, in many parts of Europe, we may daily fee equall-d, nay far exceeded, by thofe of modern jugglers. Add to thefe fome oracles he pronounced, . concerning which, if we may form a judg- ment from the account and fpecimen gi- ven us by Lucian,: we fhould conclude, that, like moft other Heathen oracles, they were unintelligible, or equivocal, br falfe. Before whom did he exhibit his wonders ? Before none, if he could help it, that were not thorough believers in the popular fy- ftem. His no(flurnal myfteries were al- ways introduced with an AVAUNT to J- theifis, S6£t.4- G'bSPEL FtJLLY ATTESTED. Ig^ thetjls^ Ghr^ians, SLiid Epicureans: and in- deed it was daiigcRjus for any' fuch to be preferit at them.' The author fays, thatj " from his ignbrant Paphlagonians, he " was enabled to proceed to the inhliing " of votaries among the Grecian philofb- " phers." On what authority he advan^ ces this, I have not been able to difcoverl He adds, " and men of the moft eminent " rank and diftindlion in Rome." Lucian mentions one man of rank, Rutilianub, a- Inong the votaries of the prophet; an ho- neft man he calls him, but at the fame time the weakeft, the irioft fbperftitious that ever liv'd. As to the military expedi- tion, which one would imagine from Mr Hume's expreffion', the Emperor had fe- folved on, in confequence of the encou- ragement which the delufive prophecies of this impoftor gave him, we find, on the contrary, it was undertaken, before thofe prophecies were uttered. But further, B b Did f 94 The miracles of the Partllfi Did Alexander rifle any thing in affuming the chafader of the interpreter oi^s^Vh^'' PIUS? Didhe lofe, or did he fufFer any- thing in defence qf it?. Quite the rev^c. He inriched himfelf by this moft ingenious occupation. I fhall fay nothing of the pidlure which Lucjan gives pf his morals, of the many artifices which he nfed, or of the a;trDcio\is crimes which he perpetrated. It mufl be own'd,. that the principal fbqpe for calumny and detradlion is in ;wha? concerns the private life and moral charac-> ter. Lupian was an enemy, and, by* his own account, had received the highei^ provocation; But I avoid every thing, on i:his topic, that can admit a qvjeftion.' t; -Where, I would gladly know, lies the refemblance between this impoftor and the firfl: publifhers of the gofpel? Every jone, on the moft fuperfijcial review, may difco- ver, that, in all the material circumftances, they are perfedl contrafts.. There appears not >Se<5l.^ GOSPEL FULLY ATTESTED. I95 not therefore to be great danger in the re- mark which the author hath affix'd to this rtelation, as the fling: ?' Thor much to be '* nvifh^dy it does not always happen, that '* eveiy Alexander meets with a Luciatif -** ready to expofe and detect his impo- ■" ftures." Left the full import of this em- ^haticai clanfe fhould not be apprehended, the author hath been ftill more explicit in the note : " It may here perhaps be ob^ ^* je^ed, that I proceed ralhly, and form " my notions of Alexiander, merely from the account ^ven of him by Lucian, a *' profefs'd enemy. It. ivere indeed to be " 'vai/Fd, that Ibme of the accounts pu- blilhed by his followers and accompli- " ces had remain'd. The oppofition and " contraft betwixt the character and con- " du(fl of the iarae man, as drawn by a " friend or an enemy, is as flxong, even " in common life, much more in theie " religious matters, as that betwixt any B b 2 " two '« M 196 The miracles of the PartIL "two men in the world, betwixt Alexan- *'^der and Saint Paul for inftance." Who can forbear to lament the uncommon diftrefs of an author, oblig'd every mo- ment to recur to unavailing, wifhes ? Mr Hume, hovvrever, in. this calamitous fitua^ -tion, folaceth himfelf, as » well as he can; by fuppofing Athat he cannot affert. He fuppofeth what would have been the cafe, if his wifhes could have been gratified ; and artfully infinuates, inihis manner, to his readers, that if we had the character and condu(9; of the apoflle, delineated by as able an enemy as Lucian, we fhould find the pidlure as ugly as that of Alexander. ' : Let us then for once fuppofe, with the .author, that fuch an enemy had underta- ken' the hiflory of Paul of Tarfus. I can jeafily conceive what a different reprefen- tation we fhould, in that cafe, ; have had, £>f the mental endowments and moral dif^ political, as well as of the induceraeiit;s,and views Se(9:.4'. gospel PUiiLY attested. 197 •views of this Chriftian? iniffionary. I can conceive alfo, that both his adliofis and dif- courfes might have been ftrangely disfigu- red. But if; the biographer hud main- tain'dahy regard^ I fay not, to truth, but to probabiUty ; there are fame things, we may be abfblutely certain, he would never -^ave' advanced. He would not fiirely have iaid of Pavil, that he was by pt-ofeflion a cunning man, or conjurer ; one who, for a piece of money, either told people their fortunes,- or taught them how to recover ftolen goods. He would not, I fuppofe, have pretended, that where-ever the a- poftle went, he, in order to gain the po- pulace^' jfo/^^r'^ their fuperftition, and founded all his pretenfions on the popular -fyftem. He would not have alledged, that .Paul inrici^dhimfelft or that he could e- ver have the profpedl of inriching himfelf, by his vocation ; nay, . or that he riiked .jiothing, or fuflfer'd nothing, by it. He could 198 'rf Tfl» Miracles otp THf Part U. couIH not' have feid concerning Him, that h&declnidxkkR audience orfilmtiny of me», ■whbfeopinions in religion differ'd from diofer on Which his niiiHoa was founded. Hd diirft not have imputed to hiia the nmfe policy e£ \zymg the fcene of his im- poftui'es, only w^here ignorance, barbaf- rifni, ^d flupidity pr evail'd : a§ It is un- queftionable, thiat our apoftk traVeried great pMJt, not only of Mid. MiiiOf , but of 'Macedonia/ and Achaia; fi^d his refi- dence ei^taai months at ebrintbi a city- riot lefs celebrated for the polite arts, than -for its populouihefs arid riches; preached •publitiy at Athens, before the Stoics and the Epicureans, and even before the Areo- pagus, the moft verierable judicature in rGteece; not afraid of what the philofo- -phers of that renowned mart of learning, might fpread through the whole Roman 5(Knpire, concerning him and his do6xine ; may, §p£t. 4* GOSPEL FULLY ATTEJST^fiD. ^951 aa,y, an^ Uftly , ptj^cW at Ronaeitfelf^ the miftrefs ?Lnd. metropqUs of thcsrorid. The reader will obferve, that, in this comparifon, I have Ihunned every fjiing ^at i§ gf a private, and therefore of a du-i bious nature. The. whole is: founded on fuch.a£):iQns amd events as were nocortous j yrhicli 'tis not in the power q£ cotemp^ar ry hiftorians to falfify ; fuch with. regard to Alexander, as a votary could not have diilembled ; fuch with regard to Paul, as an enemy durft ijot have denied. We ard tndy indebted to the eflayift, who intend- ing to exhibit a rival to the apoftle, hadi provided him witli sl/oU. Truth hevet ihines widi greater luftre, than when con- fronted with wifehood. The evidence of ^ur. religion, how ftrong fbever^ appears not fo irrefiftible, x:oniider'd by itfeif, as when by comparifon we perceive^ that ;lione of thofc artifices i|nd circumftances attended its propagation, whicji the whole ', ' courfe locn -''The MliiACStfis OF T«E'> P^rt IL courie of experience flidws to be neceffafy to render impofture fuccefsfol. The next topic on which the inge- nious author hath beftow'd fome flourifties, is the miracle " which Tacitus reports o£ " Vefpafian, who cured a blind man in "Alexandria, by means of his fpittle, and "a lame man by the mere touch of his ". foot, in obedience to a vifion of the god " Serapis, who had enjoin'd them to have , " recourfe to the emperor,* for thefe mira- " culous and extraordinary cures *." The ftory lae, introduces with informing us, that it is "one of the beft attefled miracles "in all profane hiftory." If fo, ,it will the better ferve for. a fample of what may be expected from that quarter. " Every ", circumftance," he tells us, " feems to " ,add weight to the,; teftimony, and might ," be Jdifplayed atjarge, with all the force • p. 192. ■ " of Seft. 4" 60SPEL FtJLLY ATTESTED. 2or " of argunient and doqTfence,^ if any one " were now coiicei'n'd to enforce the 'jevi- " dence of that exploded and idolatrous " fiiperititibn." For my part, were I cori- cern'd to enforce the evidence of that ex- ploded and idolatrous fuperftition, I {hould not wifh the ftory were in better hands than in the author's. He is by no naeans deficient in eloquence ; and if fometimes there appear a deficiency in argument, that is not imputable to him, but to th6 -fubjeift, which cannot furnifli him with a- y "the certificates and letters which, 'he jsrocur'd from Madrid, put beyond con- troverfy., -Among thefe, there are letters from a Spanilh grandee, Don Francis Xa>- -. vier, ^&>f, OaSpEL FULLY ATTEStfeD. 2^ fier, and from the patient's uncle, befides a certificate figned by hinafelf. .'j After the above obfervations, L beliesrei there will be no occafion for faying much ©n this fttbje(5lji The author has, in a j^te, jirtfully enough pointed Out hi§ ain^ lixat if. Bright not be overlook'd by ; tht carelefs reader ^. " There is another " bocdc," fays he, " in three volumes, " (called, Reciteildej miracles de.l'Abbe Pa- " ris) giving an account of many of thefe "; miracles, and accompanied with prefa- f* tory difcourfes, which are very well " wrote." He adds, "i There runs, ho w- ** ever, thro' the whole^ pf thefe, a ridi- *' culous comparifon. betwixt the .miracjei " of our Saviour and thbfe of the J.W.; *' wherein 'tis aiOTerted, that the evidence " for the latter is equal to that for the " former." At firft reading, one is a-pt, teith furprife, to imagine, that the author H h 1* 242 The -MIRACLES of the Part II; ,. - ■ « is going to make fome atonement for the' tenets of the elTay, by turning advocate for the miracles of Jeflxs Chrift ;■ and by ihowing, that thefe are not afFedled by his' dodlrine. But on this point we are not long held in fuipenfe. He fUbjoins, «" As *■ if the teftimony of men could ever be " put in the balance with that of God " himfelf, who conduced the pen of the " infpired writers." An ingenious piece of raillery without queftion,^ Is it, pof^ fible, in a politer manner, or in more ob-! liging terms, to tell the Chriftian world, They are fools; and that all who are filly enough to believe the miracles recorded ii^ fcripture, are not intitled to be argued with as men. How ? They are fo abfurd as to believe the fcriptures to be the word of God, on the evidence of the miracles wtought by our Lord and his apoflles; and that thefe miracles were wrought, they could not believe on any, teftimony, ' lefg l^Q:./* GOSPEL FULLY ATTESTED. 2^.^ kfs than that of God,i reporting them in ihe fciriptures ; and thus, by making infpi- ration and miracles reciprocally founda- tions to each other, they, in effedl, admit both without any foundation at all. Af- /fer this handlbme compliment to the fiiends of holy writ, he thinks himfelf at liberty to be very explicit on the coinpa- rative evidence of the mira;cles of the -^^•^ ^/, and thofe of Jefus : " If thefe writers " indeed were to be confider'd merely as " human teftimony, the French author; is " verjr moderate in his comparifon; fince " he might, 'with fame appearance of rea- " Jon, pretend, that the Janfenift miracles '■'■ much furpafs xh& oxhsx , in evidence and ", authority." Was ever fo rough an af^ fault preceded by fo fmooth, hut fo infi- diousa ipreamble? Is it thenftill the fate of Jefiis to be betrayed with a kifs I But notwithftanding this axithor's declaration, no Chriftian will have reafon to dread the H h 2 iffue i^± -"The miracles of the Partllt. ifFue of the compariibnl Mr Hume hath not ehter'd on particulars, neither ihall I enter on them. I fliould not incHne to tire ray reader with repetitions, which, in a minute inquiry, would be inevitabfc. I fharll therefore only defire him, if he think it needful, to perufe a fecond time the eight foregoing, obfervations. Let him try the miracles of our Lord by this toueh- ftonb; and I perfuade myfelf, he will be fatisfied, that there is no appearance of rea- Jan to pretend, that the Janfenift miracles- much Jnrpdfs the other, or even equal them^ in evidence and authority. ■' The author triumphs not a little in the obfervation, that the reports of the prodi- gies perform'd by the deacon, were violent- ly dppbs'd by the civil magiflrate, and by the Jefuiis, the moft learned fociety in the kingdom. ' He could fee the importance of this circumflance in the cafe of Abhe r Paris, tho' not in the cafe of Jefus Chrift, Seft.^, ©OSPEI. FULLY ATTESTED. ^45 But th^t the difference of the cafes, as well as their reiemblance, may better appear ; i^t ought likewife to be obferved, that Jan- fenifm,, tho' not the ruHng fa«£lion, was at that tinie the popular faction j that this p6» pularity was not the effedlof the miracles of the Abbe, but anteciSdent to thefe mi- racles; that, on the contrary, the Jeiuits were extremely unpopular j and that many, who had no more faith in the miracles of §aint Medard than Mr Hume hath,, were well pleas'd to connive ai; a delufion, which at once plagued and mortified a bo* dy of men, that were become almoil uni- Terfally odious. .': I fhall only add, that nothing could more effedlually expofe the folly of thofe pretenfions, than the expedient by which they were made to ceafe. ." In confequence of an order from the King, the iepulchre was inclofed with a wall, and the votaries were debarr'd from approaching' the tomb. The Z46 The miraci-es:of,.the Part 10 The author fays in relatiori to this % " -Ncfc " Janfenift was ever embarrafs'd to ao " count for the ceflation of the miracles, " ; when the churchyard was fliut up by " the King's edid." (Certain it is, that " God is mafter of his own graces an(4' " works." But it is equally certain, that neither reafon nor the gofpel leads : us to think, that any human expedient will prove fiiccefsful, which is calculated to fruftrate the decrees of Heaven. Both, on the contrary, teach us, that men never more diredily promote the defigns -of their maker, than when they intend diredlly to oppofe them. It was not thus, that either Pharifees or Sadducees, Jews or Gentiles, fucceededin theiroppofitionto the. miracles of Jefus and his apoftles. The opinion of Gamaliel -f* was .undoubtedly judicious : If this comfelor this naork he of men, it.nvill ^ come to nought ', but if it be of God, ye can- * p. 198. in the note. -f- Ads v. 38. 39. ' NOT Sc£t.5. GOSi>EL FULLY ATTESTED. 24^ NOT overt hronv it; beivare therefore, lefi yt he found fighting even Againfi God. ' To con- clude, Did the Jaiifenift cauft derive any advantage- from thofe pretended miracles? None at all. It even fufFer'd by them. It is juftLy Tjemiarked' by Voltaire *, that " the tomb of the deacon Paris, prov'd in ** ieflfeft, in the minds of all people of " ffenfe, the tomb of Jarifenifm." How unlike in all refpe(5^s the miracles recorded by the Evangelifts ! . . ' *» k. " - N*t -^ - * *- , I (['#■» I - w >i, *.-■ TflUs I have briefly inquir'd into the nature and evidence,! jBrft of the Pagan, and next of the Popijh miracles", mei^tioned- by Mr Hume ; and have, I hope, fufficigntly evinced, that th^ mi- racles of the New Teftament ca,n fuffer nothing by the comparifon ; ' that, on the contrary, as, in painting, the fhades fef y? jp heighten the* glow of the colours j and, * gifclc de Louis XIV. cha;^. 33, in ft4S • The- MIRACLES OF THE Partir, in mufic, the difcords to fet off the fweet- uefs of the melody; fo the value o£ the^ genuine nairacle? is enhanced by the con- trail of thofe paltry counterfeits . S E C T I O N VL Ahftra^ing from the evidence, for particular faffs, njue have irrefragablecuidencef that ;" there have been miracles in farmer times j orfuch events as, vuhen^ compard ivith the prefent conftitution (f the ivorld, ivmldby ■r Mr Mime he denominated mracuhm. I Readily concur with Mr Hume in maintaining, that' when, merely by the force of reason, we attempt to in- vefligate the origin of ivorlds *, we get be- ^pond ovir iphef e, and muft infallit)ly be- %7ilder ourfelves in hypothefes and conjec- * Ellay Y2. Of the academical or fceptical pbilbTopfiy- part3. ture. SeQi.6. G-OSPEL FXTLLY ATTESTED. 249 ture. Reason indeed r< (which vainly boafts her ali-fufficiency) hath fometimes ^€tended to carry men to this amazing height. But there i& ground to fufpedli that, in fuch inflances, the afcent of redi JoHf as the author elegantly expreffeth it *, hath been aided by the wings of imagina' ^ih. If we will not be indebted to r evE^^ L ATION, for our knowledge of this article, we muft, for aught I can perceive, be fa- tisfied to live in ignorance. There is,, how- ever, one queftion diftindl from the for- mer, tho' akin to it, whidb, even from the principles of reafon, we may with great prqbability determine. The qiieftion^^ I mean is. Whether the world had an origin or not? - That there hath been an infinite, eter- nal^ and independent feries of finite, fuc- ceffive, atxd dependent beings, fuch as men, and confequently that the world € Eflay II. Of a particular providence and future ftate. : I i had 250 The miracles of the Part II, had no beginning, appears, icom the bare confideration of the thing, extremely in- credible, if not altogether abfurd. The abftradl argument us'd on fthis -head, might appear too, metaphyfical- and refin'd? I ihall not therefore intrpdude it ; but fhall recur to topics, which are' more familiar, and which, tho' they do not demonftrate, that the eternity of the world is abfolut^ly impoffible, evince, that it is, highly im? probable, or father, certainly falfe. Thef? topics I fhall only mention^ as they ar§ pretty obvious, and have been often u^-r ged with great energy by the learned, both ancient and modern. ■ ^nch ar^, th? late invention of letters, and of all • the fciences and arts by which human life i§ civilized ; the /known OFagin of n^ft na- tions, ftates and kingdoms; and the iirft, peopling of many countries. 'TTis in oi^y power at prefent to trace the hiftory of er yer^ {lepple backwards to times ' qfr the greateft $eQ:.6. GOSPEL FULLY ATTESTED. 25! greateft bafbafity and ignorance. Eu- t6p6,' tho' not the largeft of the four parts into which the earthy is- divided, is, on inany accounts, the moft confiderable. But -what a different face doth Europe wear at preftftt, from what it did three thoufand years ago I How immenfe the odds in knowledge, in artSj in policy, in every thirig ? Ho'w eafy is the intercourft, ahd how exterifive the acquaintance, which men can now enjoy with all, even the re- rtidteft regions of the globe, compar'd with vvhat was, or could haVe been enjby'd, in that time of darkiiefs and fimplicity ? A mian differs not more from a child, thaii the human race now difi^rs from What the human race was then. Three thoufand years ago, Appear indeed to riiark a very diftant epoch ; and yet it is but as yefter^i- day, compar'd with eternity. This, when duly weighed, every thinking, perfon will acknowledge- to be as ftrong moral . evi'^-' I i 2 dence, 252 The miracles of the Partlli derice, as the fubjedt can admit, (aftd that I imagine is very ftrong) that the worM had a beginhiiig. ^ I fhall make a fuppofition, which Tvill perhaps appear whimfical, but which will tend to elucidate the argument I am en- forcing. In antediluvian times^ when the longevity of man was fuch as to include fome centuries, 1 fhall fuppofe, that a few boys had been tranfported to a ddot ifland, and there left together, juft old e- ridugh to make fliift to fuftain themfelves, fLS thdfe' in the golden age are fabled to have done, on acorns, and other fponta- nedus produ^ions of the foil. I fhall fup- pofe, that they had lived there for fome hundreds of years, had remember'd no- thing of their coiiiing into the iflandj nor of any other perfon whatfoever ; and that thus they had never had accefs to know, Or hear, of either birth, or death. I fhall fuppofe them to enter into a ferious dif- quifition 9e(St.6; GOSPEL fully attested, aej (^ifiaoH' concerning their own daratid% ibequeftion having been ftarted,. Whether they had exifted firom eternity, ojt had once begun to be ? They recur to memo* ry: but. memory can furniiL them widi nothing certain or The MIRACLES OF THE Part II. rational, it is evident, that m tlie creation, formation, or fipft produ<3:ion of things, call it by what name you pleafe, a powet muft have been exerted, which, in refpedl of the prefent courfe of nature, may be ftyled miracuious, I intend not to difpute ^bout a word, nor to inquire, whether that term can, in ftridl propriety, be us'd of any exertions before the eftablifliment of the laws of nature. I ufe the word in the fame latitude, in which the author commonly ufeth it in his reaibning, for e- very eyent, that is not confornisble to that courfe of nature with which we are acquainted by experience. Whether, therefore, the world had, or had not, a beginning ; whether, on the firji fuppofition, in order to folve the numberlefs objections that arife, we do, or do not, recur to Vim\e.v{a\ cataftrophes-^ whether, onxhefecond, the production of things Se£i:.6. gospel fully attested. 261 Aings be afcrib'd to ehance^ or to dcfign\ there is no poflibility of accounting fo^ the phenomena that prefently come un- der our notice, without having at laft re- courfe to miracles; that is, to events al- together unconfonnable, or, if you will, contrary to the present courfe of nature known to us by experience. I cannot con- ceive an hypothefis, which is not reducible to one or other of thofe above mentii^ned. Whoever, imagines, that anpther might be framed, which is not comprehended in any of thofe, and which hath not as yet been devis'd by any fyftem-builder; jet him make the experiment, and I will ven- ture to prognofticate, that he will ftjll find himfelf clogged with the fame difficulty. The CQUclufion therefore above deduced, may be juftly deem'd, till the contrary is Jhown, to be not only the refult of one, but alike of every hypothefis, of which the fubjedl is fuiceptible. Thus 262 The MIRACLES OF THE Partll; Thus it hath been evinced, as was pro- pos'd, that abftradling from the evidence for particular fa«3:s, we have irrefragable evidence, that there have been, that there muft have been, miracles in formeiftimes, or fuch events, as, when compar'd with the prefent conftitution of the world, would by Mr Hume be denominated mi- jiaculous* ' ' SECTION VII. JievifalqfMr Humes examination of the Pen-* tat'eitch. ■ Ih" ALlowing to the conclufion dedu- ced in the foregoing fedioh its pro- per weight, I fhall alfo take into confide- ration the Pentateuch, or five books of Mo- fes; or rather, L fhall endeavour impar*- tially to revife the examination which thofe books have already undergone by the effayift Se&.y\ GOSPEL FULLY ATTESTED. 263 eflayift *. It is, in this cafe, of the great- eft importance to .know, whether the evir dence on both fides hath been fairly ftated. " Here then we are firft to confider a " book," which is acknowledged, on all fides, to be the moft ancient record in the world, " prefented to usV we admit, " by " a barbarous and ignorant people -f," at the fame time exhibiting a {jiiem. of Theijm, or natural religion, which is both ratio- nal and fublime ; with which nothing that was ever compil'd or produced, on this fubjedl, in the moft enlighten^'d ages, by the moft learned, and polilhed nations, * p. aoj. ■{• The author adds, " wrote in an age, when thejr were " ftill more barbarous." Thefe words I have omitted in the Tcvifal, becaufe they appear to me unintelligible. The age in which the Pentateuch was written, is indireflly compared to another age, he fays not what : and all we can -make of it is, that this people were more barbarous at that time, than at fome other time, nobody knpwi when, who 264 The miracles ot rair Part If. \v^ho were unacquainted- witH that book, will bear to be compar'd. • ' ' Mr Hume himfelf muft allow, that this remark deferves attention, fince his rea- foning* in another performarice^ which he Calls, The natural hijiory of religion^ woiiM lead us to expeifl the contrary. He ther6 inaintains, that Polytheifm and Idolatry are, and niUft be, the religion of rude and bar- barous, and cohfequently of ancient ages ; that the true principles oi Theifm, or the belief of one almighty and wife being, the creator, the preferver, and the rttler of heaven and , earth, refults from the great-- eft improvements of the- underftanding in philofophy and fcience. To fuppofe the contrary, fays he, it fuppofirig, that " while nien were ignorant and barba- " rous, they difcover'd. truth ; but fell in- *' to errorj as foon as they acquir'd learn- " ing and politenefs *." This reafoning • Natural hiftory of ■Religion. I, is ^SCtjp; QPSfBt FULLY ATTESTED. 265 i^s juft, l5[liere-ever ?digion is to be cpn- fider'd as the refult of hunxan refledlionsij ^fifhat ^cqpunt then vfUl the author gi\5e of ^^is, won,derftil e^geption ? That ;he re- f grie is here the cafe, it is impoffible foy |iim to difl^nib^e. The people he himfel^ <^lla ign,orant and barbarous ; yet they are jip^ idplaters op polythe^fts. At the time when the book, which he examines, was compos'd, he feem^ to think, they even exceeded themfelves in barbarity ; yet the ^ntiinents of thefe barbarians, on the fub- jjP^ pf ;-eligipn, the fentiments which that very bpok pre%its to us, may well put to file^ce the wifdpm of the politeft nations on the ^ayth. Need I remind Mr' Hume pf his exprefs declaration, ^hat if a travel- \ef were tranfpprted into any unknown re- gion, and found ti^e inhabitants " igno- ** rant and barbarous, he paight before- " ]la^d declare them idolaters, and there " isfcarce a possibility of his being L 1 " miftaken 266 • The MIRACLES OP THE Pdrt II. " miflaken * ?" I know no iatisfadlory account that can be given- of this excep- tion, on the -principles of the effayift. Neverthelefs, nothing is more eafy, than to give a fatisfadlory account of it, on the Chriflian principles. This account is that which is given by the book itfelf. < It is-, that the religious tenets of that nation were not the refult of their reafbnings, bvit proceeded from divine revelation. The contrail we difcern betwixt the fons of Israel, and the ancient Greeks and Romans, is remarkable. The Greeks and Romans, on all the fubje6ts of hu' man erudition, on all' the liberal and ufe- ful arts, reafoned like men ; on the fubjedl of religion, they prated like children^ The fons of Israel, on the contrary, in all the fciences and arts, were childrefk; but, in their notions of religion, they vidce men ; in the dodlrines, for example, of the * Natural hiftory of religion. 1. unity, Sedt.yi GOSPEL FULLY ATTESTED. 267 unity, the eternity, the omnip^otehce, the omaifcience, the omniprefence, the wif- dom, and the goodnefs of God ; in their opinions concerning providence, and the creation, preietvation and governments of the world j opinions fo exalted and . cortir prehenfive, as, even by the author's ,ac- knoiwrledgnient;^ : could never enter into the thoughts of barbarians. . . i But to proceed in the revifal : We have here a book, fays the eflayift, "wrote in " all probability long, after the fadls it re- •** lates." That this ,bopk, was written long after fome of the fads it relates, is not indeed.'denied; that it was written long ■after all, or even mq/l of thofe fadls, I fee no reafon to believe; If Mr Hume meant to fignify, by the expreflion quoted, that this vyas in all probability the cafe, why did he not produce the grounds on which the probability is founded? Shall a bold afljertion pafs for. argument? or can it, be L 1 2 expeded, 268 The MIRACLES oi' THE Part If. expedled, that atiy one. flibuld cofifld^ re^fons, which are only in general fnp- *pos'd, biit not fpedfied ? He adds, " corroborated by no concur^ *^ ring teftimony j" as little, fay I, ihvalr- dated by any contradiSiing teflimbny ; anfd both, for this plain reafon, becaufe there is no hurtian compolition, that can be compar'd with this, in refpedl of antiqui- ty. But tho' this book is not cotrobbra- ted by the concurrent teftimony 'of anjr <:oeval htiftories, becaufe, if there ever were fuch hiftories, they are not norXr ex- tant; it is not therefore deftitute of all col- Jateral evidence. The following examf)le5 of this kind of evidence deferve fdme no- tice. The dtvifion of time into weeks^ which hath obtaih'd in many countries, for inftance among the Egyptians, Chi- nefe, Indians, and northern Barbarians; nations whereof feme had little or no in- tercQurfe with others, and were not even known S&!k.j: GOSPEX. FUiiLY ATTESTED. z6g known by name to the Hebrews *: the tradition which in feveral places prevail'd c6iicerniiigthe priiiritiie:ftate of inriocdice and happinefs : the fubfequent SoQenera.'Cp of minkind : thdi: deftrudlion by a flood : aaid liie ptefervatroh of dne family in a VefTd. Nay, which is 'ftill ffi-dhg^^I/I * The judicious reader, will obferve, thatthc;re. is a great difference between the coricurrence of nations, Ih me'divifitfii 6f tfeeinto vieeks, and their coftcurrcnde iii the '6ther periodical (^vifuHis, iatoyear's, months, dad daj/s. Thefc divifions arifc from fuch natural caufcs, as are every whereobvioas ; the an- nual and diurnal revolutioiis of the fiui, and' the revolution of the Bioon. "He divifion into iveeks, on the contrary, Ktini perfedly arHitrary : confequehtlyits preVailiijg in diftant coun-^ tries, among nations which had no tommunication with one an- other, afibrds a ftrong prefumption, that it muft haVe been dc- livM fr6in Ibme tradition (as that of the creatiotr) which tath been older than "the Tdj^efficai of mankind &rodidcrenir re- giiSBS. 'Tis eaiy^ to conceive, that the pradice, in. rude and barbarous ages, might remain, thro' habit, when the tradition, on which it was founded, is entirely loift ; 'tis ealy to conceive, "that afterward, people kddifted to idolatry, or who, like the •^gyprisns, had become proficients in aftrpnomyi fliould ?©gn to the different d?ys of the wecjc, ihc ^^unes of their deities, or of the planets. ,might 27a The miracles^oj the Part 11. might plead the' veftiges of fome fuch cav taftrophe as thefdeluge, which the fhells and other marine bodies, that are daily- dug, out of the b6\i^ls of the earth,! in places remote from the fea, do clearly ex^ hibit toi. us: I might urge the traces, which ftill remain in ancient hiftories, of the migration of people and of fcience from Afla' (which, hath not improperly been ftyled the cradleof the,art,s) into ma-- ny parts both of Africa and Europe: I might plead the coincidence of thofe mi- grations, and of the origin of ftates and kingdoms, with the time of the difperfion of the poflerity of Noah. ' , But to return : ^The author fubjoins, " rer " fembling thofe fabulous accounts, which " 'every nation gives of its origin." 'Tis unluckily the fate of holy .writ ' with this author, ; that both its refemblance, and its want of refemblance, to the accounts of other authors, are alike prefumptions a- ' ' gainft St&.y. GOSPEL FULLY ATTESTED. 271 gainft it. He hath not indeed told us, wherein it refembl^ fabulous accounts; and, ■ for my part, tho' the charge were perfedlyjuft, I Ihould imagine, little or nothing to the difadvUntage of the Pen- tateuch, could be deduced from it. It is univerfally '- agreed ; among the '^learned, that even the moft abfurd fables of idola- ters, derive their origin from fa6ls, which having been, in barbarous ages, tranfinit- ted only by oral tradition, have come at length to be grdfsly corrupted and disfi- gur'd. "Tis- neverthelefs probable, that fuch fidions would ftill retain fome ftri- king features of thiafe truths, from which theyfprung; And if the books of Mofes refemble, in any thing, the fabulous ac- counts of other nations, it would not per- haps be difficult to prove, that they re- femble only whatever is leaft fabulous in thefe accounts. That this will be found to be the cafe, we may reafonably pre- fume, 2/2 The miracles of the Part II, fvime, ©yeji froin what ;hath been obiery'^ already; and if fo, the refembjance, fe> far from .fefing dn^rgument a^^inft thoi^ hoofca, is' evidently an argjipieqt in theij? fa:«QiiR ' In order to remove any do^niht! uhat may remain on this head, it ought ta ^e attended toj that, in a number of conr current teftimonies., (where there could have been no, previous concert) thei;e is £v probability independent of that which ^-g-j feltg from our faith in the; vvitne:(res, j nayj flaould the witnefle^ be of fuch ^ charac-? ter as to merit no faith at all. This pro? I^ahility arifeth fropa fhe concurrence, ifc fclf.:. That fuch a concurrence fhqnld fpriag from chance, is as one tp infinity, in. Other words, mq^ally impoffible; if therefor-e concert: be e^icluded, tliere rcr mains no other caufe but thje reality of the fad. , 'Tis true, t^at " upon reading this book^, " we find it full of prodigies and mir ' ^ "racles:" Seft./. 60SPEL FULLY ATTESTIeD. .273 " racles :" but 'tis alfo true, that many of thofe miracles are fuch, as the fubjed it treats of, muft unavoidably make us ex- pedl. For a proof of this pofition, I need but refer the reader to the principles efta- blifli'd in the preceding fedlion. No book in the world do we find written in a more fimple ftyle ; nowhere does there appear in it, the leaft aflFedlation of ornament ; yet nowhere elfe is the Almighty reprefented, as either adting or fpeakirig in a manner fo becoming the eternal ruler of the world. Compare the account of the creation which is given hjMqfeSf with the ravings of Sanchuniathon thcFhenician philofopher, which he hath dignified with the title of COSMOGONY i or compare it with the childifli extravagancies of the Greek and Latin poets, fo juftly likened by the au- thor to ajtck mans dreams * ; and then fay, whether any perfbn of candour and dif* * Natural hiftoiy of religion. XV. M m cernment 2;^4 The -Miracles OF Tttfi PartiL cernment will not be difpois'd to exclaim in, the words of the prophet, What is the CHAFF to the WHEAT ' ! The account is what we fliould call, in reference to our ex^ perience, miracubus. But was it poffible it fhould be other wife? I believe the great- ^ft infidel will not deny, that: it. is at leaft as .plaufible an opinion, that the world had a beginning, i as that it had not. If it had, can it be imagin'd by any man in his fenfes, that that j particular quality fhould be an obje.dlion to the narrative, which he previoiifly knows it ,muft have? Muft not the firft produdlion of things, the original formation of animals ^ and vegetables, require exertions of power, which, in preferyation and -propagation, can never be exemplified ? It will perhaps be objeded, , That if the miracles continued no longer, ' and extend- ed no further, than the neceffity of creation * Jer. xxiii. 28. . , . , • requir'd, Sei&.y, GOSPEL FULLY ATTESTED. 275 requir'd, this Teafoning would be juft ; but that in fadl they both continued much lofiger, and extended much further. The anfwer is obvious: It is; impoflible for us to judge, how far the neceffity of the cafe required. Immediately after the creation, things muft, have been in a ftate very dif- ferent from that which they are in at pre- fent. How long that ftate might conti- nue, we have not the means of difcovering; but as, in human infancy, 'tis neceflary that the feeble creature Ihould, for fome time, be carried in the nurfe's arms, and afterward, by the help of leading-ftrings, be kept from falling, before He , acquire ftrength to walk ; 'tis not unlikely, that, in the infancy of the world, fuch interpofi- tions Ihould be more frequent and requi- lite, till nature attaining a certain maturi" ty, thofe laws and that conftitution Ihould be eftablifhed, which we now experiencci Jt will greatly ftrengthen this conclufiion, M m 2 tft 276 The miracles of the Partir* to refled, that in every fpecies of natural produ(5lions, with which we are acquaint- ed, we invariably obferve a fimilar feeble- hefs in the individuals on their firft ap- pearance, and a fimilar gradation towards a ftate of greater perfeiSidri and liability. Befides, if we aicknowledge the neceffity of the exertion of a power, which only in reference to our experience is call'd mira- culous ; the queftion, as is well obferv^d by the judicious prelate formerly quoted *, *' whether this power flopped immediate- " ly, after ic had made man, or went on ** and exerted itfelf farther, is a queftion " of the fame kind, as whether an ordi- *' nary power exerted itfelf in fuch a par-- *' ticular degree and manner, or not." It cannot therefore, if we think reafonably "On this fubje6l, greatly aftonifli us, that fuch a book fliduld give " an account of a *' ftate of tTie world, and of human na- * An.alogy of i-eligioii, ire. part 3. chap. 2. fefirft remark is true, if there are not a- ny in the world who believe the gofpel, becaufe, as Mr Hume fiippofeth, a mi- racle cannot be believed without a new miracle, why all this ado to refute opi- nions which nobody entertains ? Certainly, to ufe his own words, " The knights-er- -" rant, who wander'd about to clear the " world of dragons and giants, nevpr en- " tertain'd the leaft doubt concerning the " exiftence of thefe monfters *." • See the firfl paragraph of ElTay 12. Of the academical or fccptical philofophy. Might 288 CoNCLUSIorJ. Might I prefume faintly tp copy but the manner of fd inimitable an original, as the author hath exhibited in his conclu- ding words, I fhould alfo conclude upon the whole. That miracles are capable of proof from teftimony, and that there is a full proof of this kind, for thofe faid to have been wrought in fupport of Chriftia- mty ; that whoever is moved, by Mr Hume's ingenious argument, td aflert, that no teftimony can give fufficient evi- dence of miracles, admits, tho' perhaps unconfcious, in place of reqfon,a. mere fubtiltj, which fubverts the evidence of teftimony, of hiftory, and even of expe- rience itfelf, giving him a determination to deny, what the common fenfe of man- kind, founded in the primary principles of the underftanding, would lead him to be- lieve. THE END.