A dissertation on miracles: containing an examination of the principles advanced by David Hume, Esq.; in An essay on miracles. / By George Campbell, D.D. Principal of the Marischal Collge, and one of the ministers, of Aberdeen. ; [Two lines from John]

A DISSERTATION ON MIRACLES. PART II. The miracles on which the belief of Christianity is founded, are sufficiently attested.

SECTION I. There is no presumption, arising from human nature, against the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Christianity.

FROM what hath been evinced in the fourth and fifth sections of the former part, with regard to religion in general, two corollaries are clearly deducible in fa∣vour of Christianity. One is, That the presumption arising from the dignity of the end, to say the least of it, can in no religion be pleaded with greater advan∣tage, than in the Christian. The other is, That the presumption arising from the religious affection, in∣stead of weakening, corroborates the evidence of the gospel. The faith of Jesus was promulgated, and gained ground, not with the assistance, but in de∣fiance, of all the religious zeal and prejudices of the times.

IN order to invalidate the second corollary, it will possibly be urged, that proselytes to a new religion, may be gained at first; either by address and elo∣quence, or by the appearances of uncommon sanctity, and rapturous fervours of devotion; that if once people have commenced proselytes, the transition to enthusiasm is almost unavoidable; and that enthu∣siasm will fully account for the utmost pitch both of credulity and falseness.

Admitting that a few converts might be made by the aforesaid arts, it is subversive of all the laws of probability, to imagine, that the strongest prepos∣sessions, fortified with that vehement abhorence which contradiction in religions principles rarely sails to excite, should be so easily vanquished in multi∣tudes. Besides, the very pretext of supporting the doctrine by miracles, if a false pretext, would of ne∣cessity do unspeakable hurt to the cause. The pre∣tence of miracles will quickly attract the attention of all to whom the new doctrine is published. The influence which address and eloquence, appearances of sanctity and fervours of devotion, would otherwise have had, however great, will be superseded by the consideration of what is infinitely more striking and decisive. The miracles will therefore first be can∣vassed, and canvassed with a temper of mind the most unfavourable to conviction. 'Tis not solely on the testimony of the evangelists that Christians be∣lieve the gospel, tho' that testimony appears in all respects such as merits the highest regard; but it is on the success of the gospel; it is on the testimony, as we may justy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the numberless proselytes

that were made to a religon, opposing all the religi∣ous professions then in the world, and appealing, for the satisfaction of every body, to the visible and miraculous interposition of Heaven in its favour. The witnesses considered in this light, and in this light they ought to be considered, will be found more than 'a sufficient number:' and tho' perhaps there were few of them, what the author would deno∣minate 'men of education and learning;' yet, which is more essential, they were generally men of good sense, and knowledge enough to secure them against all delusion, as to those plain facts for which they gave their testimony; men who, (in the common acceptation of the words) neither did, nor could derive to themselves either interest or honour by their attestations, but did thereby, on the contrary, evi∣dently abandon all hopes of both.

It deserves also to be remembered, that there is here no contradictory testimony, notwithstanding that both the founder of our religion, and his adhe∣rents, were from the first surrounded by inveterate enemies, who never

esteemed the matter too in∣considerable to deserve their attention or regard;

and who, as they could not want the means, gave evident proofs that they wanted not the inclination to detect the fraud, if there had been any fraud to be detected. They were jealous of their own reputa∣tion and authority, and foresaw but too clearly, that the success of Jesus would give a fatal blow to both. As to the testimonies themselves, we may permit the author to try them by his own rules * 1.1.

There is here no opposition of testimony; there is no apparent ground of suspicion from the character of the witnesses; there is no interest which they could have in imposing on the world; there is not a small number of witnesses, they are innumerable. Do the historians of our Lord deliver their testimony with doubt and hesitation? Do they fall into the op∣posite extreme of using too violent asseverations? So far from both, that the most amazing instances of divine power, and the most interesting events, are related without any censure or reflection of the wri∣ters on persons, parties, actions, or opinions; with such an unparallelled and unaffected simplicity, as demonstrates, that they were neither themselves ani∣mated by passion like enthusiasts, nor had any design of working on the passions of their readers. The greatest miracles are recorded, with as little appear∣ance either of doubt or wonder in the writer, and with as little suspicion of the reader's incredulity, as the most ordinary incidents: A manner as unlike that of impostors as of enthusiasts; a manner in which those writers are altogether singular; and I will add a manner which can on no supposion be tolerably ac∣counted for, but that of the truth, and not of the truth only, but of the notoriety, of the events which they re∣lated. They spoke like people, who had themselves been long familiarized to such acts of omnipotence and grace. They spoke like people, who knew that ma∣ny of the most marvellous actions they related, had been so publicly performed, and in the presence of multitudes alive at the time of their writing, as to be uncontrovertible, and as in fact not to have been con∣verted,

even by their bitterest foes. They could bold∣ly appeal on this head to their enemies. A man, say they, spaking of their master * 1.2, approved of God among you, by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as YE YOURSELVES ALSO KNOW The objections of Christ's persecutors a∣gainst his doctrine, those objections also which regard the nature of his miracles, are, together with his an∣swers, faithfully recorded by the sacred historians; 'tis strange, if the occasion had been given, that we have not the remotest hint of any objections against the reality of his miracles, and a confutation of those ob∣jections.

BUT passing the manner in which the first proselytes may be gained to a new religion, and supposing some actually gained, no matter how to the faith of Jesus; can it be easily accounted for, that, even with the help of those early converts, this religion should have been propagated in the world, on the false pretence of miracles? Nothing more easily, says the author. Those original propagators of the gospel have been deceived themselves; for

a religionist may be an enthusiast, and imagine he sees what has no reality † 1.3.

Were this admitted, it would not in the present case, remove the difficulty. He must not only himself imagine he sees what has no reality, he must make every body present, those who are no en∣thusiasts, nor even friends, nay he must make enemies also imagine they see the same thing which he ima∣gines

he sees; for the miracles of Jesus were ac∣acknowledged by those who persecuted him.

That an enthusiast is very liable to be imposed on, in whatever favours the particular species of enthu∣siasm, with which he is affected, none, who knows any thing of the human heart, will deny. But still this frailty hath its limits. For my own part, I cannot find examples of any, even among enthu∣siasts, (unless to the conviction of every body they were distracted) who did not see and hear in the same manner as other people. Many of this tribe have mistaken the reveries of a heated imagination, for the communications of the Divine Spirit, who never, in one single instance, mistook the operations of their external senses. Without marking this difference, we should make no distinction between the enthusiastic character and the frantic, which are in themselves evidently distinct. How shall we then account from enthusiasm, for the testimony given by the apostles, concerning the resurrection of their master, and his ascension into heaven, not to mention innumerable other facts? In these it was impossible that any, who in the use of their reason were but one remove from Bedlamites, should have been deceived. Yet, in the present case, the unbeliever must even say more than this, and, accumulating absurdity upon absurdity, must affirm, that the apostles were deceived as to the resurrection and ascension of their master, notwith∣standing that they themselves had concerted the plan of stealing his body, and concealing it.

BUT this is not the only resource of the infidel. If he is driven from this strong hold, he can take refuge

in another. Admit the apostles were not deceived themselves, they may nevertheless have been, thro' mere devotion and benevolence, incited to deceive the rest of mankind. The religionist, rejoins the author,

may know his narration to be false, and yet per∣severe in it, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause * 1.4.

Our religion, to use its own nervous language, teacheth us † 1.5, that we ought not to lie, or speak wickedly, not even for God; that we ought not to accept his person in judgment, or talk, or act deceitfully for him. But so very little, it must be owned, has this sentiment been attended to, even in the Christian world, that one would almost think, it contained a strain of virtue too sublime for the apprehension of the multitude. 'Tis therefore a fact not to be ques∣tioned, that little pious frauds, as they are absurdly, not to say impiously, called, have been often prac∣tised by ignorant zealots in support of a cause, which they firmly believed to be both true and holy. But in all such cases the truth and holiness of the cause are wholly independent of those artifices. A person may be persuaded of the former, who is too clear-sighted to be deceived by the latter: for even a full conviction of the truth of the cause is not, in the least, inconsistent with either the consciousness, or the detection of the frauds used in support of it. In the Romish church, for example, there are many zealous and orthodox believers, who are nevertheless incapable of being imposed on by the lying wonders, which some of their clergy have exhibited. The cir∣cumstances

of the apostles were widely different from the circumstances, either of those believers, or of their clergy. Some of the miraculous events which the apostles attested, were not only the evidences, but the distinguishing doctrines of the religion which they taught. There is therefore in their case an absolute inconsistency betwix a conviction of the truth of the cause, and the consciousness of the frauds used in support of it. Those frauds themselves, if I may so express my self, constituted the very essence of the cause. What were the tenets, by which they were distinguished, in their religious system, particularly from the Pharisees, who owned not only the unity and perfections of the Godhead, the existence of an∣gels and demons, but the general resurrection, and future state of rewards and punishments? Were not these their peculiar tenets, That

Jesus, whom the Jews and Romans joined in crucifying without the gates of Jerusalem, had suffered that ignominious death, to make atonement for the sins of men * 1.6? that, in testimony of this, and of the divine acceptance, God hath raised him from the dead? that he had exalted him to his own right hand, to be a prince and a saviour, to give repentance to the peo∣ple, and the remission of their sins † 1.7? that he is now our advocate with the father ‡ 1.8? that he will descend from heaven at the last day, to judge the world in righteousness § 1.9, and to receive his faithful disciples into heaven, to be forever with himself ‖ 1.10?

These fundamental articles of their system, they

must have known, deserved no better appellation than a string of lies, if we suppose them liars in the testi∣mony they gave of the resurrection and ascen∣sion of their master. If, agreeably to the Jewish hypothesis, they had, in a most wonderful and daring manner, stole by night the corpse from the se∣pulchre, that on the false report of his resurrection, they might found the stupendous fabrick they had pro∣jected among themselves, how was it possible they should conceive the cause to be either true or holy? They must have known, that in those cardinal points, on which all depends, they were false witnesses con∣cerning God, wilful corrupters of the religion of their country, and public, though indeed disinterested in∣cendiaries, whithersoever they went. They could not therefore enjoy even that poor solace,

that the end will sanctify the means:

a solace with which the monk or anchoret silences the remostrances of his conscience, when in defence of a religion which he re∣gards as certain, he, by some pitiful juggler-trick, imposeth on the credulity of the rabble. On the contrary, the whole scheme of the apostles must have been, and not only must have been, but must have ap∣peared to themselves, a most audacious freedom with their Maker, a villainous imposition on the world, and I will add, a most foolish and ridiculous project of heaping ruin and disgrace upon themselves, with∣out the prospect of any compensation in the present life, or reversion in the future.

ONCE more, can we account for so extraordinary a phenomenon, by attributing it to that most power∣ful

of all motives, as the author thinks it * 1.11,

an ambition to attain so sublime a character, as that of a missionary, a prophet, an ambassador from heaven?

Not to mention, that such a towering ambition was but ill adapted to the mean rank, poor education, and habitual circumstances, of such men as the Apo∣stles mostly had been; a desire of that kind, what∣ever wonders it may effectuate when supported by enthusiasm, and faith, and zeal, must soon have been crushed by the outward, and to human appearance insurmountable difficulties and distresses they had to encounter; when quite unsupported from within by either faith, or hope, or the testimony of a good conscience; rather, I should have said, when they themselves were haunted from within by a consci∣ousness of the blackest guilt, impiety, and baseness. Strange indeed it must be owned without a parrallel that in such a cause, and in such circumstances, not only one, but all, should have the resolution to per∣severe to the last, in spite of infamy and torture; and that no one among so many confederates; should be induced to betray the dreadful secret.

THUS it appears, that no address in the FOUNDER of our religion, that no enthusiastic credulity, no pious frauds, no ambitious views in the FIRST CONVERTS, will account for its propagation on the plea of mira∣cles, if false; and that consequently there is no pre∣sumption arising from human nature against the mira∣cles said to have been wrought in proof of Christiani∣ty.

SECTION. II. There is no presumption arising from the history of man∣kind, against the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Christianity.

IN the foregoing section, I reasoned only from the knowledge that experience affords us of human na∣ture, and of the motives by which men are influenced in their conduct. I come now to the examination of facts, that I may know whether the history of man∣kind will invalidate or corroborate my reasonings.

THE essayist is confident, that all the evidence resulting hence is on his side. Nay so unquestionable a truth does this appear to him, that he never attempts to prove it: he always presupposeth it, as a point universally acknowledged. 'Men in all ages,' we learn from a passage already quoted,

have been much imposed on, by ridiculous stories of miracles ascribed to new systems of religion * 1.12.

Again he asserts, that

the violations of truth are more com∣mon in the testimony concerning miracles, than in that concerning any other religious matter of fact † 1.13.

These assertions, however, tho' used for the same purpose, the attentive reader will ob∣serve, are far from conveying the same sense, or be∣ing of equal weight in the argument. The difference hath been marked in the fourth section of the first part of this tract. The oracular predictions among the ancient Pagans, and the pretended wonders per∣formed

by capuchins and friars, by itinerant or stati∣onary teachers among the Roman Catholics, the au∣thor will doubtless reckon among religious miracles; but he can with no propriety denominate them, mi∣racles ascribed to a new system of religion † 1.14. Now, 'tis with those of the class last mentioned, and with those only, that I am concerned; for 'tis only to them that the miracles wrought in proof of christianity bear any analogy.

I shall then examine impartially this bold assertion, That

men in all ages have been much imposed on,

by ridiculous stories of miracles ascribed to new sys∣tems of religion.

For my part, I am fully satisfied, that there is not the shadow of truth in it: and I am utterly at a loss to conceive what could induce an author so well versed in the annals both of ancient and mo∣dern times as Mr Hume, in such a positive manner to advance it. I believe it will require no elaborate dis∣quisition to evince, that these two, JUDAISM and CHRISTANITY, are of all that have subsisted, or now subsist in the world, the only religions, which claim to have been attended in their first publication with the evidence of miracles. It deserves also to be remarked, that it is more in conformity to common language, and incidental distinctions which have arisen, than to strict propriety, that I call Judaism and Christanity, two religions. 'Tis true, the Jewish creed, in the days of our Saviour, having been corrupted by rabbinical tra∣ditions, stood in many respects, and at this day stands in direct opposition to the Gospel. But it is not in this acceptation that I use the word Judaism. Such a creed, I am sensible, we can no more denominate the doctrine of the Old Testament, than we can denominate the creed of Pope Pius the doctrine of the New. And truly the fate which both institutions, that of Moses, and that of Christ, have met with among men, hath been in many respects extremely similar. But when, on the contrary, we consider the religion of the Jews, not as the system of faith and practice, which presently obtains, or heretofore hath obtained among that people; but solely as the religion that is revealed in the law and the prophets, we must acknow∣ledge, that in this institution are contained the rudi∣ments

of the gospel. The same great plan carried on by the Divine Providence, for the recovery and final happiness of mankind, is the subject of both dispen∣sations. They are by consequence closely connected. In the former we are acquainted with the occasion and rise, in the latter more sully with the progress and com∣pletion of this benign scheme. 'Tis for this reason that the scriptures of the Old Testament, which alone contain the authentic religion of the SYNAGOGUE, have ever been acknowledged in the CHURCH, an es∣sential part of the gospel-revelation. The apostles and evangelists in every part of their writings, presuppose the truth of the Mosaic economy, and often found both their doctrine and arguments upon it. 'Tis therefore, I affirm, only in proof of this one series of revelations, that the aid of miracles hath with success been pretended to.

CAN the PAGAN religion, can, I should rather say, any of the numberless religions (for they are totally distinct) known by the common name of Pagan, produce any claim of this kind that will me∣rit our attention? If the author knows of any, I wish he had mentioned it; for in all antiquity, as far as my acquaintance with it reacheth, I can recollect no such claim. However, that I may not, on the one hand, appear to pass the matter too slightly; or, on the other, lose myself, as Mr Hume expresses it, in too wide a field; I shall briefly consider, whether the ancient religions of Greece or Rome (which of all the species of heathenish superstition are on many ac∣counts the most remarkable) can present a claim of this nature. Will it be said, that that monstrous

heap of fables we find in ancient bards, relating to the genealogy, productions, amours, and atchievements, of the gods, are the miracles on which Greek and Roman Paganism claims to be founded?

If one should talk in this manner, I must remind him, first, that these are by no means exhibited as EVIDENCES, but as the THEOLOGY itself; the poets always using the same affirmative style concerning what passed in heaven, in hell, and in the ocean, where men could not be spectators, as concerning what passed upon the earth: secondly, that all those mythological tales are confessedly recorded many cen∣turies after they are supposed to have happened; no voucher, no testimony, nothing that can deserve the name of evidence having been produced, or even al∣ledged, in proof of them; thirdly, that the intention of the writers seems to be solely the amusement, not the conviction of their readers; that accordingly no writer scruples to model the mythology to his par∣ticular taste, or rather caprice; but considering this as a province subject to the laws of Parnassus, all agree in arrogating here the immemorial privilege of poets, to say and feign, unquestioned, what they please; and fourthly, that at least several of their narrations are al∣legorical, and as plainly intended to convey some physical or moral instruction, as any of the apologues of Aesop. But to have said even thus much in refuta∣tion of so absurd a plea, will perhaps to many readers appear superfluous.

LEAVING therefore the endless absurdities and in∣coherent fictions of idolaters, I shall inquire, in the next place, whether the MAHOMETAN worship

(which in its speculative principles appears more rati∣onal) pretends to have been built on the evidence of miracles.

Mahomet, the founder of this profession, openly and frequently, as all the world knows, disclaimed such evidence. He frankly owned that he had no commission nor power to work miracles, being sent of God to the people only as a preacher. Not in∣deed but that there are things mentioned in the revela∣tion he pretended to give them, which, if true, would have been miraculous; such are the nocturnal visits of the angel Gabriel, (not unlike those secret inter∣views, which Numa, the institutor of the Roman rites, affirmed that he had with the goddess Egeria) his getting from time to time parcels of the uncreated book transmitted to him from heaven, and his most a∣mazing night-journey. But these miracles could be no evidences of his mission. Why? Because no per∣son was witness to them. On the contrary, it was because his adherents had previously and implicitly believed his apostleship, that they admitted things so incredible, on his bare declaration. There is indeed one miracle, and but one, which he urgeth against the infidels, as the main support of his cause; a mi∣racle, for which even we, in this distant region and period, have not only the evidence of testimony, but, if we please to use it, all the evidence which the contemporaries and countrymen of this military a∣postle ever enjoyed. The miracle I mean is the ma∣nifest divinity, or supernatural excellence, of the scriptures which he gave them; a miracle, concern∣ing

which I shall only say, that as it falls not under the cognisance of the senses, but of a much more fal∣lible tribunal, taste in composition, and critical dis∣cernment, so a principle of less efficacy than enthu∣siasm, even the slightest partiality, may make a man, in this particular, imagine he perceives what hath no reality. Certain it is, that notwithstanding the many defiances which the prophet gave his enemies sometimes to produce ten chapters, sometimes one, that could bear to be compared with an equal portion of the perspi∣picuous book * 1.15, they seem not in the least to have been convinced, that there was any thing miraculous in the matter. Nay this sublime performance, so highly venerated by every Mussulman, they were not afraid to blaspheme as contemptible, calling it,

A confused heap of dreams,

and the silly fables of "ancient times † 1.16."

Passing therefore this equivocal miracle, if I may call it so, which I imagine was of very little use in

making proselytes, whatever use it might have had, in confirming and tutoring these already made; it may

be worth while to enquire, what were the reasons, that an engine of such amazing influence was never employed by one who assumed a character so eminent, as the chief of God's apostles, and the seal of the prophets? Was it the want of address to manage an impositi∣on of this nature? None who knows the history of this extraordinary personage, will suspect that he

wanted either the genius to contrive, or the reso∣lution and dexterity to execute, any practicable ex∣pedient for promoting his grand design; which was no less than that extensive despotism, both religious and political, he at length acquired. Was it that he had too much honesty to concert and carry on so gross an artifice? Those who belive him to have been an impostor in pretending a divine mission, will hardly suspect him of such delicacy in the methods he would take to accomplish his aim. But in fact there is no colour of reason for such a suggestion. There was no prodigy, no miraculous interposition, which he hesitated to give out, however extravagant when he saw it would contribute to his ends. Pro∣digies of which they had no other evidence but his own allegation, he knew his adversaries might deny, but could not disprove. His scruples therefore, we may well conclude, proceeded not from probity, but from pru∣dence; and were solely against such miracles, as must be subjected to the scrutiny of other people's senses. Was it that miracle-working had before that time become so stale a device, that instead of gaining him the admiration of his countrymen, it would have ex∣posed him to their laughter and contempt? The most cursory perusal of the Alcoran, will, to every man of sense, afford an unanswerable confutation of this hypothesis. * 1.17 Lastly, was it that he lived in an en∣lightened

age, and amongst a civilized and learned people, who were too quick-sighted to be deceived by tricks, which among barbarians might have pro∣duced the most astonishing effects? Quite the reverse. He lived in a barbarous age, and amongst an illiterate people, with whom, if with any, he had reason to be∣lieve the grossest deceit would have proved successful.

What pity was it, that Mahomet had not a coun∣sellor so deeply versed in human nature as the essayist,

who could have assured him, that there needed but effrontery and enterprise; that with these auxiliaries he had reason to hope the most impudent pretences would be crowned with success? The too timid prophet would doubtless have remonstrated against this spirited counsel, insisting, that it was one thing to satisfy friends, and another thing to silence or con∣vert enemies; that it was one thing to impose on mens intellects, and another thing to deceive their sen∣ses: that tho' an attempt of the last kind should suc∣ceed with some, yet if the fraud were detected by any, and he might expect that his adversaries would exert themselves in order to detect it, the whole my∣stery of craft would be divulged, his friends would become suspicious, and the spectators of such pre∣tended miracles would become daily more prying and critical; that the consequences would infallibly prove fatal to the whole design; and that therefore such a cheat was on no account whatever to be risked. To this methinks I hear the other replying with some earnestness,

Make but the trial, and you will cer∣tainly find, that what judgment, nay and what senses your auditors have, they will renounce by principle in those sublime and mysterious subjects; they will imagine they see and hear what has no reality, nay whatever you shall desire that they should see and hear. Their credulity (forgive a freedom which my zeal inspires) will increase your impudence, and your impudence will overpower their credulity. The smallest spark may here kin∣dle into the greatest flame; because the materials are always prepared for it. The avidum genus auricu∣larum

swallow greedily, without examination, what∣ever soothes superstition and promotes wonder.

Whether the judicious reader will reckon that the prophet or his counsellor would have had the better in this debate, I shall not take upon me to decide. One perhaps (if I might be indulged in a conjecture) whose notions are founded in metaphysical refine∣ments, or whose resolutions are influenced by ora∣torical declamation, will incline to the opinion of the latter. One whose sentiments are the result of a practical knowledge of mankind, will probably sub∣cribe to the judgment of the former, and will allow, that in this instance the CAPTAIN-GENERAL and PROPHET of Islamism acted the more prudent part.

Shall we then say, that it was a more obscure thea∣tre on which JESUS CHRIST appeared? Were his spectators more ignorant, or less adverse? The con∣trary of both is manifest. It may indeed be affirmed with truth, that the religion of the wild Arabs was more repugnant to the doctrine of Mahomet, than the religious dogmas of the Jews were to those of Jesus. But we shall err egregiously, if we conclude thence, that to this repugnancy the repugnancy of disposition in the professors of these religions must be proportionate. 'Tis a fine observation of the most piercing and comprehensive genius, which hath ap∣peared in this age. That

tho' men have a very strong tendency to idolatry, they are nevertheless but little attached to idolatrous religions; that tho' they have no great tendency to spiritual ideas, they are nevertheless strongly attached to religions which

enjoin the adoration of a spiritual being * 1.18.

Hence an attachment in JEWS, CHRISTIANS, and MAHO∣METANS to their respective religions, which was never displayed by POLYTHEISTS of any denomination. But its spirituality was not the only cause of adherence which the Jews had to their religion. Every physi∣cal, every moral motive concurred in that people to rivet their attachment, and make them oppose with violence, whatever bore the face of innovation. Their religion and polity were so blended as scarce to be distinguishable: this engaged their patriotism. They were selected of God preferably to other na∣tions: this inflamed their pride † 1.19. They were all under one spiritual head, the highpriest, and had their solemn f••stivals celebrated in one temple: this strengthened their union. The ceremonies of their public worship were magnificent: this flattered their senses. These ceremonies also were numerous, and occupied a great part of their time: this, to all the other grounds of attachment, superadded the force of habit. On the contrary, the s••mplicity of the gospel, as well as the spirit of humility, and moderation, and charity, and universality, (if I may be allowed that term) which it breathed, could not fail to alarm a people of such a cast, and awaken, as in fact it did, the most furious opposition. Accordingly, Christia∣nity had fifty times more success amongst idolaters, than it had among the Jews. I am therefore war∣ranted to a••••ert, that if the miracles of our Lord and

his apostles had been an imposture, there could not on the face of the earth, have been chosen for ex∣hibiting them, a more unfavourable theatre than Judea. On the other hand, had it been any where practicable, by a display of false wonders, to make converts to a new religion, no where could a project of this nature have been conducted with greater pro∣bability of success than in Arabia. So much for the contrast there is betwixt the Christian MESSIAH and the ORPHAN CHARGE of Abu Taleb. So plain it is, that the mosque yields entirely the plea of miracles to the synagogue and the church.

BUT from HEATHENS and MAH••METANS, let us turn our eyes to the CHRISTIAN world. The only object here, which merits our attention, as coming under the denomination of miracles ascribed to a new system, and as what may be thought to rival in crebibility the miracles of the gospel, are those said to have been performed in the primitive church, after the times of the apostles, and after the finishing of the sacred canon. These will probably be ascrib∣ed to a new system, since Christianity, for some cen∣turies, was not (as the phrase is) established, or (to speak more properly) corrupted by human authority; and since even after such establishment, there re∣mained long in the empire a considerable mixture of idolaters. We have the greater reason here to consider this topic, as it hath of late been the subject of very warm dispute, and as the cause of Christianity itself (which I conceive is totally distinct) seems to have been strangely confounded with it. From the manner in which the argument hath been conducted,

who is there that would not conclude that both must stand or fall together? Nothing however can be more groundless, nothing more injurious to the religion of Jesus, than such a conclusion.

The learned writer who hath given rise to this controversy, not only acknowledges, that the falsity of the miracles mentioned by the fathers, is no evi∣dence of the falsity of the miracles recorded in scrip∣ture, but that there is even a presumption in favour of these, arising from those forgeries, which he pre∣tends to have detected * 1.20. The justness of the re∣mark contained in this acknowledgment, will appear more clearly from the following observations.

Let it be observed, first, that supposing numbers of people are ascertained of the truth of some mira∣cles, whether their conviction arise from sense or from testimony, it will surely be admitted as a conse∣quence, that in all such persons, the presumption against miracles from uncommonness must be great∣ly diminished, in several perhaps totally extinguish∣ed.

Let it be observed, secondly, that if true miracles have been employed successfully in support of cer∣tain religious tenets, this success will naturally sug∣gest to those, who are zealous of propagating fa∣vourite opinions in religion, to recur to the plea of miracles, as the most effectual expedient for accom∣plishing their end. This they will be encouraged to do on a double account: first, they know, that peo∣ple from recent experience, are made to expect such

a confirmation; secondly, they know, that in con∣sequence of this experience, the incredibility, which is the principal obstruction to such an undertaking, is in a manner removed: and there is, on the con∣trary, as in such circumstances there certainly would be, a promptness in the generality to receive them.

Add to these, that if we consult the history of mankind, or even our own experience, we shall be convinced, that hardly hath one wonderful event actually happened in any country, even where there have not been such visible temptations to forgery, which hath not given rise to false rumours of other events similar, but still more wonderful. Hardly hath any person or people atchieved some exploits truly extraordinary, to whom common report hath not quickly attributed many others, as extraordinary at least, if not impossible. As fame may, in this respect, be compared to a multiplying glass, reasona∣ble people almost always conclude in the same way concerning both; we know that there is not a real object corresponding to every appearance exhibited, at the same time we know that there must be some objects to give rise to the appearances.

I should therefore only beg of our adversaries, that, for argument's sake, they will suppose that the miracles related in the New Testament were really performed; and then, that they will candidly tell us, what, according to their notions of human nature, would, in all likelihood, have been the consequences. They must be very partial to a darling hypothesis, or little acquainted with the world, who will hesitate to own, that, on this supposition, 'tis not barely proba∣ble,

but certain, that f•• a few endowed with the miraculous power, there would soon have arisen numbers of pretenders; that from some miracles well attested, occasion would have been taken to propagate innumerable false reports. If so, with what colour of justice can the detection of many spurious reports among the primitive Christians be considered as a presumption against those miracles, the reality of which is the most plausible; nay the only plausible account that can be given of the origin of such reports? The presumption is too evidently on the opposite side to need illustration.

'Tis not my intention here to patronize either side of the question which the Doctor's Free inquiry hath occasioned. All that concerns my argument is, bare∣ly to evince, and this I imagine hath been evinced, that, granting the Doctor's plea to be well founded, there is no presumption arising hence, which tends in the lowest degree to discredit the miracles record∣ed in holy writ; nay, that there is a contrary presumption. In further confirmation of this truth, let me ask, Were there ever, in any region of the globe, any similar pretensions to miraculous powers, before that memorable era, the publication of the gospel? Let me ask again, Since those pretensions ceased, hath it ever been in the power of the most daring enthusiast, to revive them any where in favour of a new system? Authentic miracles will, for a time, give a currency to counterfeits; but as the former be∣come less frequent, the latter become more suspect∣ed, till at length they are treated with general con∣tempt, and disappear. The danger then is, lest

men, ever prone to extremes, become as extrava∣gently incredulous, as formerly they were credulous. Laziness, the true source of both, always inclines us to admit or reject in the gross, without entering on the irk some task of considering things in detail. In the first instance, knowing some such events to be true, they admit all without examination; in the se∣cond, knowing some to be false, they reject all with∣out examination. A procedure this, which, how∣ever excusable in the unthinking herd, is altogether unworthy a philosopher.

But it may be thought, that the claim to miracles in the early ages of the church, continued too long to be supported solely on the credit of those perform∣ed by our Lord and his apostles. In order to ac∣count for this, it ought to be attended to, that in the course of some centuries, the situation of affairs, with regard to religion, was really inverted. Educa∣tion, and even superstition, and bigotry, and popula∣rity, which the miracles of Christ and his apostles had to encounter; came gradually to be on the side of those wonders, said to have been performed in af∣ter times. If they were potent enemies, and such as we have reason to believe nothing but the force of truth could vanquish; they were also potent allies, and may well be supposed able to give a temporary triumph to falsehood, especially when it had few or no enemies to combat. But in discoursing on the prodigies said to have been performed in primitive times, I have been insensibly carried from the point, to which I proposed in this section to confine myself. From inquiring into miracles ascribed to new sy∣stems

I have proceeded to those pleaded in confir∣mation of systems previously established and generally received.

LEAVING so remote a period, I propose, lastly, to inquire, whether, since that time, any heresiarch whatever, any founder of a new sect, or publisher of a new system, hath pretended to miraculous pow∣ers. If the essayist had known of any such pretender, he surely would have mentioned him. But as he hath not afforded us any light on this subject, I shall just recall to the remembrance of my reader, those persons who, either as innovators or reformers, have made some figure in the church. They were the persons from whom, if from any, a plea of this kind might naturally have been expected; especially at a time when Europe was either plunged in barbarism, or but beginning to emerge out of it,

Was ever then this high prerogative, the power of working miracles, claimed or exercised by the founders of the sects of the Waldenses and Albigen∣ses? Did Wickliff in England pretend to it? Did Huss or Jerom in Bohemia? To come nearer mo∣cern times, Did Luther in Germany, Zuinglius in Switzerland, Calvin in France, or any other of the reformers, advance this plea? Do such of them as are authors, mention in their writings any miracles they performed, or appeal to them as the evidences of their doctrine? Do contemporary historians al∣ledge, that they challenged the saith of their auditors, in consequence of such supernatural powers? I ad∣mit, if they did, that their miracles might be ascri∣bed to a new system. For tho' they pretended only

to re-establish the Christian institution, in its native purity, expunging those pernicious interpolations, which a false philosophy had foisted into the doctrinal part, and Pagan superstition into the moral and the ritual; yet as the religion they inculcated, greatly differed from the faith and worship of the times, it might, in this respect, be denominated a new sy∣stem; and would be encountered by all the violence and prejudice, which novelties in religion never fail to excite. Not that the want of real miracles was a presumption against the truth of their doctrine. The God of nature, who is the God of Christians, does nothing in vain. No new revelation was pretended to; consequently there was no occasion for such supernatural support. They appealed to the revelati∣on formerly bestowed, and by all parties acknow∣ledged, as to the proper rule in this controversy: they appealed to the reason of mankind as the judge; and the reason of mankind was a competent judge of the conformity of their doctrine to this unerring rule.

But how, upon the author's principles, shall we account for this moderation in the reformers? Were they, in his judgment, calm inquirers into truth? Were they dispassionate reasoners in defence of it? Far otherwise. He tells us,

They may safely be pronounced to have been universally inflamed with the highest enthusiasm * 1.21.

And doubtless we cannot expect from this hand a more amiable picture of their disciples. May not we then, in our turn, safely pronounce, this writer himself being judge, that for a man to imagine he sees what hath no rea∣lity, to impose in this manner not only on his own

understanding, but even on his external senses, is a pitch of delusion higher than the highest enthusiasm can produce, and is to be imputed only to downright frenzy * 1.22?

Since the world began, there hath not appeared a more general propension to the wildest fanaticism, a greater degree of credulity in every claim that was made to the illapses of the Holy Spirit, or more tho∣rough contempt of all established modes of worship, than appeared in this island about the middle of the last century. 'Tis astonishing, that when the minds of men were intoxicated with enthusiasm; when e∣very new pretender to divine illuminations was quick∣ly surrounded by a crowd of followers, and his most incoherent effusions greedily swallowed as the dictates of the Holy Ghost; that in such a Babel of sectaries, none are to be found, who advanced a claim to the power of working miracles; a claim which, in the author's opinion, tho' false, is easily supported, and wonderfully successful, especially among enthusiasts. Yet to Mr Hume himself, who hath written the history of that period, and who will not be accused of neglecting to mark the extravagancies effected by enthusiasm, I appeal whether this remark be just.

Will it be alledged as an exception that one or two frantic people among the Quakers, not the leaders of the party, did actually pretend to such a power? Let it be remembered, that this conduct had no other consequences, but to bring upon the pretenders such a general contempt, as in that fanatical and gloomy age, the most unintelligible jargon or glaring nonsense would never have been able to produce.

Will it be urged by the essayist, that even in the be∣ginning of the present century, this plea was revived in Britain by the French prophets, a set of poor visiona∣ries, who, by the barbarity with which they had been treated in their own country, had been wrought up

to madness, before they took refuge in this? I must beg leave to remind him, that it is manifest, from the history of those delirious and unhappy creatures, that by no part of their conduct did they so effectually open the eyes of mankind naturally credulous, discredit their own inspirations, and ruin their cause, as by this, not less foolish than presumptuous pretence. Accor∣dingly they are perhaps the only sect, which hath sprung up so lately, made so great a bustle for a while, and which is nevertheless at this day totally extinct. It deserves also to be remarked concerning this people, that though they were mad enough to imagine that they could restore a dead man to life; nay tho' they proceeded so far, as to determine and announce be∣forehand the day and the hour of his resurrection; yet none of them were so distracted, as to imagine, that they had seen him rise; not one of them afterwards pretended, that their prediction had been fulfilled. Thus even a frenzy, which had quite disordered their intellects, could not in this instance overpower their senses.

UPON the whole, therefore, till some contrary ex∣ample is produced, I may warrantably conclude,— that the religion of the BIBLE is the only religion ex∣tant, which claims to have been recommended by the evidence of miracles;—that though in different ages and countries, numberless enthusiasts have arisen, ex∣tremely few have dared to advance this plea;—that wherever any have had the boldness to recur to it, it hath proved the bane, and not the support, of their cause. Thus it hath been evinced, as was proposed, that there is no presumption arising from the history

of the world, which can in the least invalidate the ar∣gument from miracles, in defence of Christianity.

SECTION III. No miracles recorded by historians of other religions are subversive of the evidence arising from the miracles wrought in proof of Christianity, or can be considered as contrary testimony.

WHY is a miracle regarded as evidence of a religious doctrine?

Or,

What connection is there between an act of power admitted to be supernatural, and the truth of a proposition pro∣nounced by the person who exerts that power?

These are questions, which some of our infidels have exulted in as unanswerable: and they are questions, which 'tis proper to examine a little; not so much for their own sake, as because a satisfactory answer to them may throw light on the subject of this sec∣tion.

A man, I suppose, of an unblemished character, advanceth doctrines in religion, unknown before, but not in themselves apparently impious or absurd. We interrogate him about the manner wherein he attained the knowledge of those doctrines. He affirms, That by no process of reasoning, nor in any other natural way, did he discover them; but that they were re∣vealed to him by the Spirit of God. It must be own∣ed, there is a very strong presumption against the truth of what he says; and 'tis of consequence to inquire, whence that presumption ariseth. It is not primarily from any doubt of the man's integrity. If the fact he

related, were of an ordinary nature, the reputation he has hitherto maintained would secure him from being suspected of an intended deceit. It is not from any absurdity or immoral tendency we perceive in the doctrine itself. It ariseth principally, if not solely from these two circumstances, the extreme uncommon∣ness of such a revelation, and the great facility with which people of strong fancy, may in this particular impose upon themselves. The man, I supposed, ac∣quaints us further, that God, when he communicated to him the truths he publishes, communicated also the power of working miracles; such as, of giving sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf, of raising the dead, and making whole the maimed. 'Tis evident, that we have precisely the same presumption against his be∣ing endued with such a power, as against his having obtained such a revelation. Two things are asserted: there is one presumption, and but one, against them; and it equally effects them both. Whatever proves either assertion, removes the only presumption which hinders our belief of the other. The man, I suppose, lastly, performs the miracles before us, which he said he was commissioned to perform. We can no longer doubt of a supernatural communication. We have now all the evidence which the integrity of the per∣son could give us, as to an ordinary event attested by him, that the doctrine he delivers as from God, is from God, and therefore true.

Nay, we have more evidence than for any common fact, vouched by a person of undoubted probity. As God is both almighty and all-wise, if he hath bestow∣ed on any so uncommon a privilege, 'tis highly pro∣bable, that it is bestowed for promoting some end un∣commonly

important. And what more important end than to reveal to men that which may be condu∣cive to their present and eternal happiness? It may be said, That, at most, it can only prove the inter∣posal of some power superior to human: the being who interposeth is perhaps a bad being, and intends to deceive us. This it may be allowed, is possible; but the other is probable. For, first, From the light of nature, we have no positive evidence of the exist∣ence of such intermediate beings, good or bad. Their existence is therefore only possible. Of the existence and perfections of God, we have the highest moral assurance. Secondly, If there were such beings, that raising the dead, and giving sight to the blind, should come within the verge of their power, is also but pos∣sible; that they are within the sphere of omnipotence is certain. Thirdly, Whatever seems to imply a sus∣pension of any of the established laws of nature, we may presume, with great appearance of reason, pro∣ceeds from the author of nature, either immediately, or, which amounts, to the same thing mediately: that is, by the intervention of some agent impowered by him. To all these there will also accrue presumptions, not only, as was hinted already, from the character of the preacher, but from the apparent tendency of the doc∣trine, and from the effect it produceth on those who receive it. And now the connection between the mi∣racle and the doctrine is obvious. The miracle re∣moves the improbability of a supernatural communi∣cation of which it is in fact an irrefragable evidence. This improbability, which was the only obstacle, be∣ing removed, the doctrine hath, at least, all the evidence

of a common fact, attested by a man of known virtue and good sense.

In order to illustrate this further, I shall recur to the instance I have already had occasion to consider, of the Dutchman and the King of Siam. I shall sup∣pose, that, besides the account given by the former of the freezing of water in Holland, he had informed the prince of the astonishing effects produced by gun∣powder, with which the latter had been entirely unac∣quainted. Both accounts appear to him alike incredi∣ble, or, if you please, absolutely impossible. Some time afterwards, the Dutchman gets imported into the kingdom a sufficient quantity of gunpowder, with the necessary artillery. He informs the monarch of this acquisition; who having permitted him to make experiments on some of his cattle and buildings, per∣cieves, with inexpressible amazement, that all the European had told him, of the celerity and violence with which this destructive powder operates, is strict∣ly conformable to truth. I ask any considerate per∣son, Would not this be enough to restore the stranger to the Indian's good opinion, which, I suppose, his former experienced honesty had entitled him to? Would it not remove the incredibility of the account he had given of the freezing of water in northern coun∣tries? Yet, if abstractly considered, what connec∣tion is there between the effects of gunpowder and the effects of cold? But the presumption arising from miracles, in favour of the doctrine published by the performer, as divinely inspired, must be incompa∣rably stronger; since, from what hath been said, it appears to have several peculiar circumstances, which

add weight to it. 'Tis evident, then, that miracles are a proper proof, and perhaps the only proper proof, of a revelation from Heaven. But 'tis also evident, that miracles may be wrought for other purposes, and may not be intended as proofs of any doctrine what∣soever.

THUS much being premised, I shall examine ano∣ther very curious argument of the essayist:

There is no testimony,

says he,

for any prodigy, that is not opposed by an infinite number of witnes∣ses; so that not only the miracle destroys the credit of the testimony, but even the testimony destroys itself * 1.23.

In order to illustrate this strange posi∣tion, he observes, that,

in matters of religion, whatever is different is contrary; and that it is impossible the religions of ancient Rome, of Tur∣key, of Siam, and of China, should all of them be established on any solid foundation. Every mira∣cle therefore pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions, (and all of them abound in miracles) as its direct scope is to establish the particular system to which it is attributed, so it has the same force, tho' more indirectly, to over∣throw every other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of those miracles, on which that system was established; so that all the prodigies of different religions are to be regarded as contrary facts, and the evidences of these prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other.

Never did an author

more artfully avail himself of indefinite expressions. With what admirable sleght does he vary his phra∣ses, so as to make the inadvertent reader look upon them as synonymous, when in fact their significati∣ons are totally distinct? Thus what, by a most ex∣traordinary idiom, is called at first,

miracles wrought in a religion,

we are next to regard, as 'miracles attributed to a particular system,' and last∣ly, as

miracles, the direct scope of which is to establish that system.

Every body, I will venture to say, in beginning to read the sentence, if he forms any notion of what the author means by a 'miracle wrought in a religion,' understands it barely as a

miracle wrought among those who profess a particular religion,

the words appearing to be used in the same latitude, as when we call the tra∣ditional tales current among the Jews, tho' they should have no relation to religion, Jewish tales; and those in like manner Mahometan or Pagan tales, which are current among Mahometans or Pagans. Such a miracle, the reader, ere he is aware, is brought to consider as a miracle attributed to a par∣ticular system; nay further, as a

miracle, the direct scope of which is to establish that system.

Yet nothing can be conceived more different than the meaning of these expressions, which are here jum∣bled together as equivalent.

'Tis plain, that all the miracles of which there is any record, come under the first denomination. They are all supposed to have been wrought before men, or among men; and wherever there are men, there is religion of some kind or other. Per∣haps

too all may, in a very improper sense, be attri∣buted to a religious system. They all imply an in∣terruption of the ordinary course of nature. Such an interruption, wherever it is observed, will be ascribed to the agency of those divinities that are a∣dored by the observers, and so may be said to be attributed by them to their own system. But where are the miracles (those of holy writ excepted) of which you can say with propriety, it is their direct scope to establish a particular system? Must we not then be strangely blinded by the charms of a few am∣biguous terms, if we are made to confound things so widely different? Yet this confusion is the very basis, on which the author founds his reasoning, and rears this tremendous doctrine; That

a mira∣cle of Mahomet, or any of his successors,

and, by parity of reason, a miracle of Christ, or any of his apostles,

is refuted (as if it had been mentioned, and had in express terms, been contradicted) by the testimony of Titus Livius, Plutarch, Taci∣tus, and of all the authors, Chinese, Grecian, and Roman Catholic, who have related any mira∣cles in their particular religions.

Here all the miracles, that have been related by men of different religions, are blended, as coming under the common denomination of miracles, the direct scope of which was to establish those particular religious systems; an insinuation, in which there is not even the shadow of truth.

That the reader may be satisfied on this point, I must beg his attention to the following observations concerning the miracles of profane history. First, Many facts are related as miraculous, where we may

admit the fact, without acknowledging the miracle. Instances of this kind we have in relations concern∣ing comets, eclipses, meteors, earthquakes, and suchlike. Secondly, The miracles may be admitted as genuine, and the manner in which historians ac∣count for them, rejected as absurd. The one is a matter of testimony, the other of conjecture. In this a man is influenced by education, by prejudices, by received opinions. In every country, as was ob∣served already, men will recur to the theology of the place, for the solution of every phenomenon sup∣posed miraculous. But, that it was the scope of the miracle to support the theology, is one thing; and that fanciful men thought they discovered in the theo∣logy the causes of the miracle, is another. The in∣habitants of Lystra accounted, from the principles of their own religion, for the miracle performed in their city by Paul and Barnabas * 1.24. Was it therefore the scope of that miracle to support the Lycaonian religion? Thirdly, Many miracles are recorded, as produced directly by Heaven without the ministra∣tion of men: by what construction are these disco∣vered to be proofs of a particular system? Yet these also, wherever they happen, will be accounted for by the natives of the country, from the princi∣ples of their own superstition. Had any of the Pa∣gan citizens escaped the ruin in which Sodom was miraculously involved, they would doubtless have sought for the cause of this destruction in the establish∣ed mode of polytheism, and would probably have imputed it to the vengeance of some of their deities, incurred by the neglect of some frivolous ceremony.

Would it therefore have been the scope of the miracle to confirm this nonsense? Fourthly, Even miracles said to have been performed by a man, are no eviden∣ces of the truth of that man's opinions; such, I mean, as he pretends not to have received by revela∣tion, but by the excercise of reason, by education, or by information from other men; no more than a man's being endowed with bodily strenth greater than ordinary, would prove him to be superior to others in his mental saculties. I conclude with de∣claring, that if instances shall be produced, of mira∣cles wrought by men of probity, in proof of doctrines which they affirm to have been revealed to them from Heaven, and which are repugnant to the doctrine of the Bible, then I shall think it equitable to admit, that religious miracles contradict one another. Then will reasonable people be reduced to the dilemma, either of disproving the allegations on one side, or of acknowledging that miracles can be no evidence of revelation. No attempt however hath as yet been made by any writer to produce an instance of this kind.

'But will nothing less satisfy?' replies the author.

Will not the predictions of augurs and oracles, and the intimations said to have been given by the gods or saints in dreams and visions, of things not other∣wise knowable by those to whom they were thus intimated; will not these, and suchlike prodigies, serve in some degree as evidence?

As evidence of what? Shall we say of any religious principles con∣veyed at the same time by revelation? No, 'tis not even pretended, that there were any such principles

so conveyed: but as evidence of principles which had been long before entertained, and which were originally imbibed from education, and from education only. That the evidence here, supposing the truth of the facts, is at best but very indirect, and by no means on the same footing with that of the miracles re∣corded in the gospel, might be easily evinced, if there were occasion. But there is in reality no occasion, since there is no such evidence of the facts as can justly intitle them to our notice. Let it be remembered, that, in the fourth section of the first part, it was shown, that there is the greatest dis∣parity, in respect of evidence, betwixt miracles per∣formed in proof of a religion to be established, and in contradiction to opinions generally received; and mi∣racles performed, on the contrary, in support of a religion already established, and in confirmation of opi∣nions generally received; that, in the former case, there is the strongest persumption for the miracles, in the latter against them. Let it also be remem∣bered, that in the preceding section it was shown, that the religion of the Bible is the only religion ex∣tant, which claims to have been ushered into the world by miracles; that this prerogative neither the Pagan religion, the Mahometan, nor the Roman-Catholic, can, with any appearance of reason, ar∣rogate; and that, by consequence, there is one of the strongest presumptions possible for the miracles of the gospel, which is not only wanting in the miracles of other religions, but which is contrasted by the strongest presumption possible against these miracles. And tho' this presumption should not, in all cases,

be accounted absolutely insuperable, we must at least say, it gives an immense superiority to the proofs of Christianity. 'Twere an endless and a fruitless task to canvass particularly the evidence of all the pre∣tended miracles either of Paganism or Popery, (for on this head Mahometism is much more modest) but as the author hath selected some, which he considers as the best attested, of both religions, these shall be examined severally in the two subsequent sections. From this examination a tolerable judgment may be formed concerning the pretensions of these two spe∣cies of superstition.

But from what hath been said, it is evident, that the contrariety which the author pretends to have dis∣covered in the miracles said to have been wrought, as he expresseth it, in different religions, vanishes entirely on a close inspection. He is even sensible of this himself; and, as is customary with orators, the more inconclusive his reasons are, so much the more positive are his assertions. "This argument," says he, "may appear over subtile and refined;" indeed so subtile and refined, that it is invisible altoge∣ther;

but— is not in reality different from the reasoning of a judge, who supposes that the credit of two witnesses maintaining a crime against any one, is destroyed by the testimony of two others, who affirm him to have been two hundred leagues di∣stant, at the same instant when the crime is said to have been committed.

After the particle but, with which this clause begins, the reader naturally expects such an explication of the argument, as will convince him, that tho' subtile and refined, it hath

solidity and strength. Instead of this, he hath only the author's word warranting it to be good to all in∣tents: "But is not in reality different," &c. The a∣nalogy between his example and his argument seems to be but very distant; I shall therefore, without any comment, leave it with the reader as I find it.

THUS it appears, that, for aught the author hath as yet proved, no miracles recorded by historians of other religions are subversive of the evidence arising from the miracles wrought in proof of Christianity, or can justly be considered as contrary testimony.

SECTION IV. Examination of the PAGAN miracles mentioned by Mr Hume.

SHOULD one read attentively the Essay on Miracles, and consider it solely as a philosophical disquisition on an abstract question, like most of the other pieces in the same collection; he could not fail to wonder, what had induced the author so suddenly to change sides in the debate, and, by doing so, to contradict himself in terms the most express. Does he not, in the latter part of that performance, as warmly con∣tend for the reality of some miracles, as he had plead∣ed in the former part, for the impossibility of all? 'Tis true, he generally concludes concerning those, that they are 'gross and palpable falsehoods.' But this serves only to render his conduct the more mysterious, as that conclusion is always preceded by an attempt to evince, that we have the greatest reason to receive them as 'certain and infallible truths.' Nay, so en∣tirely

doth his zeal make him forget even his most po∣sitive assertions, (and what inconsistencies may not be dreaded from an excess of zeal!) that he shows mi∣nutely we have those very evidences for the miracles he is pleased to patronize, which, he had strenuous∣ly argued, were not to be found in support of any miracles whatever.

"There is not to be found," he affirms * 1.25,

in all history, a miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good sense, educa∣tion, and learning, as to secure us against all delu∣sion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose, in case of being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time attesting facts performed in such a public manner, and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoid∣able.

We need only turn over a few pages of the Essay, and we shall find the author taking great pains to convince us, that all these circumstances concurred in support of certain miracles, which, not∣withstanding his general resolution, he has thought fit to honour with a very particular attention.

He has not indeed told us how many witnesses, in his way of reckoning, will constitute 'a sufficient number;' but for some miracles which he relates, he gives us clouds of witnesses, one cloud succeeding another: for the Molinists, who tried to discredit them,

soon found themselves overwhelmed by a cloud of new witnesses, one hundred and twenty

in number * 1.26.

As to the character of the wit∣nesses,

most of them were persons of credit and substance in Paris † 1.27;

again, those miracles

were attested by witnesses of credit and distinction, be∣fore judges of unquestioned integrity ‡ 1.28;

and,

they were proved by witnesses, before the official∣ty or bishop's court of Paris, under the eyes of Cardinal Noailles, whose character for integrity and capacity was never contested even by his ene∣mies § 1.29;

again,

the secular clergy of France, particularly the rectors or curès of Paris, give tes∣timony to these impostures, than whom no clergy are more celebrated for strictness of life and man∣ners ‖ 1.30.

Once more, one principal witness,

Mon∣sieur de Montgeron, was counsellor or judge of the parliament of Paris, a man of figure and cha∣racter * 1.31;

another

no less a man than the Duc de Chatillon, a Duke and Peer of France, of the highest rank and family * 1.32.

'Tis strange, if credit, and substance, and distinction, and capacity, are not sufficient securities to us, that the witnesses were not 'themselves deluded;' 'tis strange, if uncontested inte∣grity, and eminent strictness of life and manners, can∣not remove 'all suspicion of any design in them to de∣ceive others;' 'tis strange, if one who was counsellor of the parliament of Paris, a man of figure and cha∣racter, and if another was a Duke and Peer of France, of the highest rank and family, had not

a great deal

to lose, in case of being detected in any falsehood:

nay, and if all those witnesses of credit and distinction, "had not also a great deal to lose;'

since the Jesu∣its, a learned body, supported by the civil magis∣trate, were determined enemies to those opinions, in whose favour the miracles were said to have been wrought * 1.33;

and since

Monsieur Herault, the lieutenant de police, of whose great reputation, all who have been in France about that time, have heard; and whose vigilance, penetration, activity, and extensive intelligence, have been much talked of; since this magistrate, who by the nature of his office is almost absolute, was invested with full powers on purpose to suppress these miracles, and and frequently seized and examined the witnesses and subjects of them; though he could never reach any thing satisfactory against them † 1.34.

As to the only remaining circumstance,

their being performed in a public manner, and in a celebrated part of the world,

this concurred also. They were perform∣ed, we are told,

in a learned age, and on the most eminent theatre that is now in the world ‡ 1.35;

be∣sides

twenty-two rectors or curès of Paris, with in∣finite earnestness, pressed the Archbishop, an ene∣my to the Jansenists, to examine those miracles, which they assert to be known to the whole world, and indisputably certain § 1.36.

Thus the essayist hath laid us under the disagreeable necessity of inferring, that he is either very rash in his

general assertions, or useth very great amplification in his particular narrations. Perhaps in both infer∣ences, we shall find, upon inquiry, that there is some truth. In his History of Great Britain, he gives us notice * 1.37, that he addressed himself

to a more distant posterity, than will ever be reached by any local temporary theology.

Why did he not likewise, in writing the Essays, entertain this grand idea? It would have been of use to him. It would have pre∣vented his falling into those inconsistencies, which his too great attention and antipathy to what he calls a localtemporary theology, only could occasion; and which, when that theology, according to his hypothesis, shall be extinct, and when all our religious controver∣sies shall be forgotten, must appear unaccountable and ridiculous. People will not then have the means of discovering, what is so obvious to us his contempo∣raries, that he only assumes the appearance of an ad∣vocate for some miracles, which are disbelieved by the generality of Protestants, his countrymen, in order, by the comparison, to vilify the miracles of sacred writ, which are acknowledged by them.

BUT to descend to particulars, I shall begin with considering those miracles, for which the author is indebted to the ancient Pagans. First, in order to convince us, how easy a matter it is for cunning and impudence to impose by false miracles on the credulity of barbarians, he introduces the story of Alexander of

Pontus † 1.38. The justness of the account he gives of this impostor from Lucian, I shall not dispute. But that it may appear, how little the Christian religion is affected by this relation, notwithstanding some insi∣nuations he hath intermixt with it, I shall make the following remarks.

It is of importance to know, what was the pro∣fession of this once so famous, tho' now forgotten Paphlagonian. Was he a publisher of strange gods? No * 1.39. Was he the founder of a new system in religi∣on? No. What was he then? He was no other than a professed fortune-teller. What were the arts by which he carried on this gainful trade? The es∣sayist justly remarks, that

it was a wise policy in him to lay the first scene of his impostures in a coun∣try, where the people were extremely ignorant and stupid, and ready to swallow the grossest delusion.

For,

had Alexander fixed his residence at Athens, the philosophers of that renowned mart of learn∣ing, had immediately spread thro' the whole Roman empire their sense of the matter; which, being

supported by so great authority, and displayed by all the force of reason and eloquence, had entirely opened the eyes of mankind.

I shall beg leave to remark another instance of good policy in him. He attemped not to gain the veneration of the multi∣tude by opposing, but by adopting their religious prejudices. His whole plan of deceit was founded in the established superstition. The author himself will acknowledge, it would have been extreme folly in him to have acted otherwise: and all the world, I believe, will agree in thinking, that, in that case, he could not have had the smallest probability of success. What were the miracles he wrought? I know of none, unless we will dignify with that name, some feats of legerdemain, performed mostly by can∣dle light; which, in many parts of Europe, we may daily see equalled, nay far exceeded, by those of mo∣dern juglers. Add to these some oracles he pronoun∣ced, concerning which, if we may form a judgment from the account and specimen given us by Lucian, we should conclude, that, like other Heathen ora∣cles, they were generally unintelligible, equivocal, or false. Before whom did he exhibit his wonders? Before none, if he could help it, that were not tho∣rough believers in the popular system. His noctur∣nal mysteries were always introduced with an A∣VAUNT to Atheists, Christians, and Epicurians: and indeed it was dangerous for any such to be present at them. Mr Hume says, that,

from his igno∣rant Paphlagonians, he was enabled to proceed to the inlisting of votaries among the Grecian philo∣sophers.

On what authority he advances this, I have not been able to discover. He adds,

and

men of the most eminent rank and distinction in Rome.

Lucian mentions one man of rank, Ru∣tilianus, among the votaries of the prophet; an ho∣nest man he calls him, but at the same time the weakest, the most superstitions that ever lived. As to the military expedition, which one would imagine from Mr Hume's expression, the Emperor had re∣solved on, in consequence of the encouragement which the delusive prophecies of this impostor gave him, we find, on the contrary, it was undertaken, before those prophecies were uttered. But further, Did Alexan∣der risk any thing in assuming the character of the interpreter of ESCULAPIUS? Did he lose, or did he suffer any thing in defence of it? Quite the reverse. He enriched himself by this most ingenious occupa∣toin. I shall say nothing of the picture which Luci∣an gives of his morals, of the many artifices which he used, or of the atrocious crimes which he perpe∣trated. It must be owned, that the principal scope for calumny and detraction is what concerns the pri∣vate life and moral character. Lucian was an ene∣my, and, by his own account, had received the high∣est provocation. But I avoid every thing, on this topic, that can admit a question.

Where, I would gladly know, lies the resem∣blance between this impostor and the first publishers of the gospel? Every one, on the most superficial re∣view, may discover, that, in all the material circum∣stances, they are perfect contrasts. There appears not therefore to be great danger in the poignant re∣mark with which the author concludes this relation:

Tho' much to be wished, it does not always hap∣pen, that every Alexander meets with a Lucian rea∣dy

to expose and detect his impostures.

Lest the full import of this emphatical clause should not be apprehended, the author hath been still more ex∣plicit in the note:

It may here perhaps be ob∣jected, that I proceed rashly, and form my no∣tions of Alexander, merely from the account gi∣ven of him by Lucian, a professed enemy. It were indeed to be wished, that some of the accounts published by his followers and accomplices had re∣mained. The opposition and contrast betwixt the character and conduct of the same man, as drawn by a friend or an enemy, is as strong, even in common life, much more in these religious mat∣ters, as that betwixt any two men in the world, betwixt Alexander and St Paul for instance.

Who can forbear to lament the uncommon distress of an author, obliged every moment to recur to unavail∣ing wishes? Mr Hume, however, in this calamitous situation, solaceth himself, as well as he can, by supposing what he cannot assert. He supposeth what would have been the case, if his wishes could have been gratified; and artfully insinuates, in this manner to his readers; that if we had the character and conduct of the apostle, delineated by as able an enemy as Lucian, we should find the portrait as ugly as that of Alexander.

Let us then for once suppose, what the author so ardently wishes, that such an enemy had undertaken the history of Paul of Tarsus. I can easily conceive what a different representation we should, in that case, have had, of the mental endowments and mo∣ral disposition, as well as of the inducements and views of this Christian missionary. I can conceive

also, that both his actions and discourses might have been strangely disfigured. But if the biographer had maintained any regard, I say not, to truth, but to probability; there are some things, we may be ab∣solutely certain, he would never have advanced. He would not surely have said of Paul, that he was by pro••••••sion a cunning man, or conjurer; one who, for a little money, either told people their fortunes, or taught them how to recover stolen goods. He would not, I suppose, have pretended, that where∣ever the apostle went, he flattered the superstition of the populace, in order to gain them, and founded all his pretensions on the popular system. He would not have alledged, that Paul inriched himself, or that he could ever have the prospect of inriching himself, by his vocation; nay, or that he risked nothing, or suffered nothing, by it. He could not have said con∣cerning him, that he declined the audience or scrutiny of men, whose opinions in religion differed from those on which his mission was founded. He durst not have imputed to him the wise policy of laying the scene of his impostures, only where ignorance, bar∣barism, and stupidity prevailed: as it is unquestiona∣ble, that our apostle traversed great part, not only of Asia Minor, but of Macedonia, and Achaia; fixed his residence eighteen months at Corinth, a city not less celebrated for the polite arts, than for its popu∣lousness and riches; preached publicly at Athens before the Stoics and the Epicureans, and even be∣fore the Areopagus, the most venerable judicature in Greece; not afraid of what the philosophers of that renowned mart of learning, might spread through

the whole Roman empire, concerning him and his doctrine; nay, and lastly preached at Rome itself, the mistress and metropolis of the world.

The reader will observe, that, in this comparison, I have shunned every thing that is of a private, and therefore of a dubious nature. The whole is found∣ed on such actions and events as were notorious; which 'tis not in the power of contemporary histo∣rians to falsisy; such with regard to Alexander, as a votary could not have dissembled; such with regard to Paul, as an enemy durst not have denied. We are truly indebted to the essayist, who intending to exhibit a rival to the apostle, hath produced a character which, we find on making the comparison, serves only for a foil. Truth never shines with grea∣ter lustre, than when confronted with falsehood. The evidence of our religion, how strong soever, appears not so irresistibly, considered by itself, as when by comparison we perceive, that none of those artifices and circumstances attended its propagation, which the whole course of experience shows to be necessary to render imposture successful.

THE next topic on which the ingenious author hath bestowed some flourishes, is the miracle

which Tacitus reports of Vespasian, who cured a blind man in Alexandria, by means of his spittle, and a lame man by the mere touch of his foot, in obedience to a vision of the god Serapis, who had enjoined them to have recourse to the emperor, for these miraculous and extraordinary cures * 1.40.

The story he introduces with informing us, that it is

one of the best attested miracles in all profane history.

If so, it will the better serve for a sam∣ple of what may be expected from that quarter. "Every circumstance," he tells us,

seems to add weight to the testimony, and might be displayed at large, with all the force of argument and eloquence, if any one were now concerned to enforce the evidence of that exploded and idolatrous super∣stition.

For my part, were I concerned to en∣force the evidence of that exploded and idolatrous superstition, I should not wish the story were in bet∣ter hands than in the author's. He is by no means deficient in eloquence; and if sometimes there appear a deficiency in argument, that is not imputable to him, but to the subject, which cannot furnish him with any better: and tho' I do not suspect him to be in the least concerned to re-establish Paganism, yet 'tis well known, that hatred to his adversary may as strongly animate an advocate to exert himself, as affection to his client.

But to proceed to the story: First, the author pleads

the gravity, solidity, age, and probity of so great an emperor, who, thro' the whole course of his life, conversed in a familiar way with his friends and courtiers, and never affected those extraordina∣ry airs of divinity assumed by Alexander and De∣metrius.

To this character, the justness of which I intend not to controvert, I shall beg leave to add, what is equally indubitable, and much to the purpose, that no emperor showed a stronger inclination to cor∣roborate his title by a sanction of the gods, than the prince of whom he is speaking. This, doubtless,

he thought the more necessary in his case, as he was of an obscure family, and nowise related to any of his predecessors. How fond he was of p••••ading visi∣ons, and presages, and auguries, in his favour, all the world knows * 1.41.

The author adds,

The historian, a contempo∣rary writer, noted for can•• and veracity, and withal the greatest and mo•••• penetrating genius per∣haps of all antiquity, and so ••ree from any tenden∣cy to superstition and cred••••••y, that he even lies under the contrary imputation of atheism and pro∣saneness.

This would say a great deal, if the cha∣racter of the historian were of any moment in the question. Doth Tacitus pretend that he was him∣self a witness of the miracle? No. Doth he men∣tion it as a thing which he believes? No. In ei∣ther case I a knowledge, that the reputation of the relater for candour and penetration, must have added weight to the relation, whether considered as his tes∣timony, or barely as his opinion. But is it fair to plead the veracity of the writer in proof of every po∣pular rumour mentioned by him? His veracity is only concerned to satisfy us, that it was actually report∣ed, as he r••es; or that the attempt was made, and the miracle pretended; a point which, I presume, nobody would have disputed, altho' the authority had been less than that of Tacitus. Indeed the historian doth not say di••ectly, whether he believes the miracle or not; but by his manner of telling it, he plainly in∣sinuates, that he thought it ridiculous. In introdu∣cing

it, he intimates the utility of such reports to the Emperor's cause. "By which," says he,

the fa∣vour of heaven, and the appointment of the gods, might be urged in support of his title * 1.42.

When he names the god Serapis, as warning the blind man to recur to Vespasian, he adds, in evident contempt and derision of his godship,

Who is adored above all others by the Egyptians, a people addicted to super∣stition † 1.43.

Again he speaks of the emperor, as in∣duced to hope for success, by the persuasive tongues of flatterers ‡ 1.44. A serious believer of the miracle would hardly have used such a style in relating it. But to what purpose did he then relate it? The answer is easy. Nothing could be more characteristic of the Emperor, or could better show the arts he had recourse to, and the hold which flattery had of him; nothing could be more characteristic of the Alexandrians, the people amongst whom the miracle is said to have been wrought.

"The persons," says the essayist,

from whose testimony he related the miracle, of established cha∣racter for judgement and veracity, ••s we may well suppose; eye-witnesses of the fact, and confirming their verdict, after the Flavian family were despoiled of the empire, and could no longer give any re∣ward as the price of a lie.

Persons of established character for judgment and veracity! Who told Mr Hume so? 'Twas not Tacitus. He only denomi∣nates

them in general * 1.45: "They who were present," and "a crowd of bystanders." The author, consci∣ous that he advances this without even the shadow of authority, hath subjoined, in order to palliate the matter, as we may well suppose. An admirable expe∣dient for supplying a weak plea, with those conve∣nient circumstances that can give it strength! When facts fail, which is not seldom the case, we need b•••• apply to supposition, whose help is always near. But if this be allowed to take the place of argument, I see no reason why I may not avail myself of the privilege of supposing, as well as the author. The witnesses then, I will suppose, were mostly an igno∣rant rabble: but I wrong my cause; I have a better foundation than supposal, having Tacitus himself, and all antiquity on my side, when I add deeply im∣mersed in superstition, particularly attached to the wor∣ship of Serapis, and keenly engaged in support of Vespasian, ALEXANDRIA having been the first city of note that publicly declared for him. Was it then matter of surprise, that a story, which at once soothed the superstition of the populace, and savoured their po∣litical schemes, should gain ground among them? Can we justly wonder, that the wiser few, who were not deceived should convive at, or even contribute to promote a deceit, which was highly useful to the cause wherein themselves were imbarked, and at the same time highly grateful to the many? Lastly, can we be surprised that any, who, so seven and twenty years, had, from motives of interest, and ambition, and po∣pularity, propagated a falschood, should not afterwards be willing to expose themselves as liars?

The author finishes the story thus:

To which if we add the public nature of the facts related, it will appear, that no evidence can well be supposed stronger for so gross and so palpable a falsehood.

As to the nature of the facts, we are told by Ta∣citus, that when Vespasian consulted the physicians, whether such maladies were curable by human art, they declared * 1.46, that

in the one the power of sight was not extinct, but would return, were the ob∣stacles removed; that in the other, the joints had suffered some dislocation, which by a salutary pres∣sure might be redressed.

From this account we are naturally led to conclude, that the disorders were not so conspicuous, but that either they might have been feigned, where they were not; or that cures might have been pretended, where none were per∣formed. I think it is even a further presumption of the truth of this conclusion, that Suetonius, the only other Roman historian who mentions the miracle, (I know not how he hath been overlooked by Mr Hume) differs from Tacitus, in the account he gives of the lameness. The one represents it as being in the hand, the other, as in the leg † 1.47.

There are other circumstances regarding this story on which I might make some remarks; but shall for∣bear,

as it is impossible to enter into a minute dis∣cussion of particulars, that appear but trivial, when considered severally, without growing tiresome to the bulk of readers. I shall therefore only subjoin these simple questions. First, What emperor or other potentate was flattered in his dignity and pretensions by the miracles of our Lord? What eminent per∣sonage found himself interested to support, by his au∣thority and influence, the credit of these miracles? Again, What popular superstition or general and rooted prejudices were they calculated to confirm! These two circumstances, were there no other, make the greatest odds imaginable betwixt the miracles of VESPASIAN and those of JESUS CHRIST.

So much for the PAGAN miracles mentioned by the author.

SECTION V. Examination of the POPISH miracles mentioned by Mr Hume.

THE author soon descends from ancient to mo∣dern times, and leaving Paganism, recurs to Po∣pery, a much more fruitful source of lying wonders.

THE first of this kind he takes notice of * 1.48, is a Spanish miracle recorded in the memoirs of Cardi∣nal de Retz. The story, he says, is very memorable, and may well deserve our consideration.

When

that intriguing politician fled into Spain, to avoid the persecution of his enemies, he passed thro' Sara∣gossa the capital of Arragon; where he was shown in the cathedral church, a man, who had served twenty years as a door keeper of the church, and was well known to every body in town, that had ever paid their devotions at that cathedral.— He had been for so long a time wanting a leg; but recovered that limb, by the rubbing of holy oil upon the stump; and, when the cardinal examined it, he found it to be a true natural leg, like the other.

Would not any person imagine, from the last words of the sentence, that the cardinal had ordered the man to put off his shoes and stockings, that, by touch as well as by sight, he might be satisfied, there was no artifice used, but that both his legs consisted of genuine flesh and bone? Yet the truth is, his Emi∣nency did not think it worth while to examine any one circumstance of this wonderful narration, but contented himself with reporting it precisely as it had been told him. His words literally translated are,

In that church they showed me a man, whose bu∣siness it was to light the lamps, of which they have a prodigious number, telling me, that he had been seen seven years at the gate, with one leg on∣ly. I saw him there with two * 1.49.

Not one word of trial or examination, or even so much as a single question asked on the subject; not a syllable of his

finding the leg to be either true or false, natural or artificial, like the other or unlike. I have a better opinion both of the candour and of the good sense of Mr Hume, than to imagine, he would have design∣edly misrepresented this story, in order to render it fitter for his purpose. I believe the source of this er∣ror hath been solely the trusting to his memory in the relation which he gave, and not taking the trou∣ble to consult the passage in the memoirs. This conjecture appears the more probable, as he hath made some other alterations, which are nowise con∣ducive to his design; such as, that the man had been seen in the church twenty years wanting a leg, and that he was a door-keeper; whereas the memoir-writer says only seven years, and that he was one who light∣ed the lamps * 1.50.

"This miracle was vouched," says the author,

by all the canons of the church; and the whole com∣pany in town were appealed to, for a confirmati∣on of the fact, whom the Cardinal found, by their zealous devotion, to be thorough believers of the miracle.

'Tis true, that the company in town were appealed to, by those ecclesiastics; but 'tis also true, that De Retz, by his own account,

seems not to have asked any man a question on the subject. He acknowledges indeed, that an anniver∣sary festival, instituted in commemoration of the mi∣racle, was celebrated by a vast concourse of people of all ranks.

"Here," continues the essayist,

the relater was also contemporary to the supposed prodigy, of an incredulous and libertine character, as well as of great genius.

But of what weight, in this affair, is either the genius or the incredulity of the relater, since, by Mr Hume's confession, he had no faith in the relation? Strange indeed is the use which the essayist makes of this circumstance!

"What adds mightily," says he,

to the force of the evidence, and may double our surprise on this occasion, is, that the cardinal himself, who re∣lates the story, seems not to give any credit to it.

It doth not in the least surprise me, that the car∣dinal gives no credit to this relation; but I am be∣yond measure surprised, that Mr Hume should repre∣sent this circumstance as adding mightily to the force of the evidence. Is then a story which is reported by a man of genius, the more credible that he doth not believe it? Or, Is it the more incredible that he doth be∣lieve it? What would the author have said, if the cardinal had told us, that he gave credit to the re∣lation? Might he not, in that case, have very per∣tinently pleaded the great genius, and penetration, and incredulity of the relater, as adding mightily to the force of the evidence? On that hypothesis, he surely might, for pretty obvious reasons. Uncom∣mon penetration qualifies a man for detecting fraud;

and it requires evidence greater than ordinary to sur∣mount incredulity. The belief therefore of such a person as the cardinal, who had not only the means of discovering ••n imposture, as he was contemporary and on the spot, but the ability to discover it, as he was a man of genius, and not over-credulous; his belief, I say, would evidently have been no small presumption of the truth of the miracle. How his disbelief can be in like manner a presumption of its truth, is to me incomprehensible. Ay but, rejoins the author,

as he seems not to give any credit to it, he cannot be suspected of any concurrence in the holy fraud.

Very well. I am satisfied that a man's TESTIMONY is the more to be regarded, that he is above being suspected of concurring in any fraud, call it holy or unholy. But I want to know why, on the very same account, his OPINION is the less to be regarded? For my part, I find no difficul∣ty in believing every article of the narration for which the cardinal gives his testimony: notwithstanding this, I may be of the same opinion with him; that the account given by the dean and canons, which is their testimony, not his, was all a fiction. But it is not with the cardinal's testimony we are here con∣cerned: about that there is no dispute. It is with his opinion. Are then a man's sentiments about a matter of fact, I must insist on it, the less worthy of regard, either because he is a man of genius, and not at all credulous, or because he cannot be suspect∣ed of any concurrence in a holy fraud? Are they the more improbable on these accounts? The essayist, when he reflects, will be the last man in the world,

would assist in establishing a maxim so unfavora∣ble, not only to candour, but even to genius and scepticism: and indeed there are few, if any, that would be greater sufferers by it than himself.

But leaving this, as one of the unfathomable depths of the essay, I proceed to the other circum∣stances. "The miracle," says the author,

of so singular a nature, as could scarce admit of a counter∣feit.

He did well at least to use the word scarce; for if every visitant was as little desirous of prying into the secret, as the cardinal, nothing could be more easily counterfeited:

And the witnesses very numerous, and all of them, in a manner, specta∣tors of the fact, to which they gave their testimo∣ny.

By the very numerous witnesses, I suppose he means the whole company in town, who were ap∣pealed to. They were all, in a manner, spectators of the fact. What precise abatement the author intended we should make, from the sense of the word spectators, on account of the qualifying phrase, in a manner, I shall not presume to determine; but shall observe, from the memoirs, that it was not so much as pretended by the canons, that any of the citizons had seen the miracle performed; 'twas only pretended, that they had seen the man formerly at the gate of the church, wanting a leg. Nor is it alledged, that any of them was at more pains in ex∣amining the matter, either before or after the recove∣ry of the leg, than the cardinal was. They were therefore properly no spectators of the fact. The phrase, in a manner, ought, I imagine, to have been placed in the end of the sentence, which would have

run thus:

to which they, in a manner, give their testimony:

for no direct testimony was either asked of them, or given by them; their belief is inferred from their devotion.

I have been the more particular in my remarks on the circumstances of this story, not because there was need of these remarks: for, tho' to the essayist the relation appeared very memorable, to me, and, I believe, to most people, it appears very trifling; but that the reader might have this further specimen of the author's talents in embellithing, To the above∣mentioned, and all other such idle tales, this short and simple answer will, by every man of sense, be thought sufficient. The country where the miracle is said to have been wrought, is SPAIN; the people who propagated the faith of it, were THE CLERGY. What comparison, in point of credibility, can be made be∣tween miracles, which, with no visible support but their own evidence, had at once to encounter, and did in fact overcome the abhorrence of the priest, and the tyranny of the magistrate, the insolence of the learned, and the bigotry of the superstitious: what comparison, I say, can be made between such, and any prodigies said to have been performed in a coun∣try, where all the powers of the nation, secular and ecclesiastical, the literature of the schools, such as it is, and the prejudices of the people, conspire in establishing their credit; a country sunk in the most obdurate superstition that ever disgraced human na∣ture * 1.51, a country where the awe of the inquisition

is so great, that no person, whatever be his sentiments, dares mutter a syllable against any opinion that hath obtained the patronage of their spiritual guides? But that I may not be accused of prepossession, or suspected of exaggerating. I shall only give the sentiments of two eminent foreigners (who were not Protestants, and may therefore be supposed the more impartial) concern∣ing that nation, and the influence which the holy tri∣bunal has both on their character and manners. Vol∣tarire * 1.52, speaking of the inquisition as established in Spain, says,

Their form of proceeding is an infal∣lible way to destroy whomsoever the inquisitors please. The prisoners are not confronted with

the informers; and there is no informer who is not listened to. A public criminal, an in famous person, a child, a prostitute, are creditable accu∣sers. Even the son may depose against his father; the wife against her husband. In fine, the priso∣ner is compelled to inform against himself, to di∣vine, and to confess, the crime laid to his charge; of which often he is ignorant. This procedure, unheard of till the institution of this court, makes the whole kingdom tremble. Suspicion reigns in every breast. Friendship and openness are at an end. The brother dreads his brother, the father his son. Hence taciturnity is become the charac∣teristic of a nation endued with all the vivacity natural to the inhabitants of a warm and fruitful climate. To this tribunal we must likewise im∣pute that profound ignorance of sound philosophy, in which Spain lies buried, whilst Germany, England, France, and ••even Italy, have discover∣ed so many truths, and enlarged the sphere of our knowledge. Never is human nature so debased, as when ignorance is armed with power.

— "'Tis necessary," says Montesquieu * 1.53, in the humble remonstrance to the inquisitors of Spain and Portugal,

that we advertise you of one thing; 'tis, that if any person, in future times, shall dare assert, that in the age wherein we live, the Europeans were civilized, YOU will be quoted to prove that they were barbarians, and the idea people will form of you, will be such as will dishonour your age, and bring hatred on all your contemporaries.

I COME now to consider the miracles said to have been performed in the church-yard of Saint Medard, at the tomb of Abbe Paris. On these the author hath expatiated with great parade, exulting, that he hath found in them, as he imagines, what, in respect of of number, and nature, and evidence, may carrie the miracles of holy writ. Yet should we adn it them to be true, how they can be considered as proofs of any doctrine, or how they can affect the evidence of the miracles recorded in scripture, 'twill not per∣haps be easy to discover. But setting that question a∣side, I propose to examine their evidence; and that, not by entering into a particular inquiry concerning each separate fact mentioned in Montgeron's collec∣tion, as such an inquiry would appear, to every ju∣dicious reader, both tedious and impertinent; but by making a few general observations, founded in unque∣stionable fact, and mostly supported even by the authority of Montgeron, that doughty champion of the Jansenist saint * 1.54.

First, Let it be remarked, that it was often ob∣jected by the enemies of the saint, and scarce con∣tradicted, never confuted, by his friends, that the prostrations at his sepulcher produced more diseases, than they cured. The ingenious author lately quoted, in the account he gives of the affairs of the church in the ninth century, taking occasion incidentally to mention the miracles of the Able, speaks of this cir∣cumstance,

as a thing universally known, and un∣undeniable * 1.55. "I should not take notice," says he,

of an epidemical folly with which the people of Dijon were seized in 844, occasioned by one Saint Benignus, who threw those into convulsions who prayed on his tomb; I should not, I say, mention this popular superstition, had it not been furiously revived in our days, in parallel cir∣cumstances. It seems, as if the same follies were destined to make their appearance, from time to time, on the theatre of the world: but good sense is also the same at all times; and nothing so ju∣dicious hath been said, concerning the modern mi∣racles wrought on the tomb of I know not what deacon at Paris, as what a bishop of Lyons said, concerning those of Dijon. A strange saint indeed, that maims those who pay their devoirs to him. I should think, miracles ought to be performed for the curing, and not for the inflicting of maladies.

The second observation is, That the instances of persons cured are extremely few, compared with the multitudes of people in distress, who night and day attended the sepulchre, imploring in vain the inter∣cession of the saint. The crowds of sick and infirm, who flocked to the tomb for relief, were, by all ac∣counts, innumerable: whereas all the cures which the zealous and indefatigable Montgeron could pro∣cure vouchers of, amounted only to NINE † 1.56. The

author therefore must be understood, as speaking with great latitude, when he says,

There surely never was so great a number of miracles ascribed to one per∣son, as those which were lately said to have been wrought in France, upon the tomb of Abbé Paris, the famous Jansenist, with whose sanctity the people were so long deluded * 1.57.

If thousands of diseased persons had applied for medicine to some ig∣norant quack, in the assurance of his extraordinary abilities; would it be matter of surprise to a rea∣sonable man, that, of so many, eight or nine should be sound, whose distempers had taken a favourable turn, whilst they were using his specifics, and had there by given countenance to the delusion? I think it would be matter of surprise that there were so few.

I shall observe, thirdly, That imposture was actually detected, and proved in several instances. That the reader may be satisfied of this, I must intreat him to have recourse to the Archishop of Sens' Pastoral in∣structions; a book which Mr Hume could not, with propriety, take any notice of, having positively assert that

the enemies to those opinions, in whose fa∣vour the miracles were said to have been wrought, were never able distinctly to refute or detect them † 1.58.

This prelate, on the contrary, hath not only given a distinct refutation of some of these pre∣tended

miracles, but hath clearly detected the deceit and little artifices by which their credit was support∣ed. I intend not to descend to particulars, and shall therefore only refer the reader to the book itself, and beg that he will peruse what relates to the cases of Jacques Laurent Menedricuz, Jean Nivet, Sieur le Doulx, Laleu, Anne Coulon, the widow de Lorme, as well as Mademoiselle le Franc, of whom the essayist hath made mention in a note. In this perusal, the reader will observe the shameful prevarications of some Jansenist witnesses, for whom Mr Hume would fain apologize, by telling us pleasantly, they were tamperd with. * 1.59. I shall only add on this head, that the detection of fraud in some instances, justly brings suspicion on all the other instances. A man whom I know to have lied to me, on several occa∣sions, I shall suspect, on every occasion, where I have not access to discover, whether what he affirms be true or false. It is in the same way we judge of the spirit and conduct of parties, as of individuals.

I observe, fourthly, That all the cures recorded by Montgeron, as duly attested, were such as might have been effected by natural means. There are two kinds of miracles, to which Mr Hume hath alluded in a note, tho' he does not directly make the distinc∣tion. One is, when the event, considered by itself, is evidently preternatural. Of this kind are, raising the dead, walking on water, making whole the mai∣med; for by no natural causes can these effects be produced. The other kind is, when the event, con∣sidered by itself, is natural, that is, may be produced by natural causes, but is denominated miraculous,

on account of the manner. That a sick person should be restored to health, is not, when considered singly, preternatural; but that health should be res∣tored by the command of a man, undoubtedly is. Let us hear the author on this point:

Sometimes an event may not, in itself, seem to be contrary to the laws of nature, and yet, if it were real, it might, by reason of some circumstances, be deno∣minated a miracle; because, in fact, it is contra∣ry to these laws. Thus, if a person claiming a divine authority, should command a sick person to be well, a healthful man to fall down dead, the clouds to pour rain, the winds to blow, in short, should order many natural events, which immediately follow upon his command; these might justly be esteemed miracles, because they are really, in this case, contrary to the laws of nature. For if any suspicion remain, that the event and command concurred by accident, there is no mi∣racle, and no transgression of the laws of nature. If this suspicion be removed, there is evidently a miracle, and a transgression of these laws; because nothing can be more contrary to nature, than that the voice or command of a man, should have such an influence * 1.60.

From what hath been said, it appears, that these two kinds of miracles must differ considerably in respect of evidence, since the latter naturally gives room for a suspicion, which is ab∣solutely excluded from the former. In the former, when the fact or event is proved, the miracle is un∣questionable. In the latter, the fact may be proved and yet the miracle may be justly questioned. It

therefore merits our attention, that all the miracles recorded in Montgeron's collection, were of the second kind. One of the most considerable of those cures, was that of Don Alphonso de Palacios, who had lost one eye, and was distressed with an inflam∣mation in the other. The inflamed eye was cured, but the lost eye was not restored. Had there been a reproduction of the member which had perished, a sufficient proof of the fact, would have been a suf∣ficient proof of the miracle. But as the case was o∣therwise, the fact vouched may be admitted, without admitting any miracle. The cures said to have been per∣formed on those patients who were afflicted with para∣lytic or dropsical disorders, or that performed on Louisa Coirin, who had a tumour on her breast, will not appear to be intitled to a rank in the first class. As little can the cure of Peter Gautier claim that honour. One of his eyes had been pricked with an awl; in consequence of which the aqueous humour dropped out, and he became blind of that eye. His sight was restored, whilst he paid his addresses to the Abbé. But that a puncture in the cornea of the eye will often heal of itself, and that the aqueous hu∣mour, after it hath been quite lost, will be recruited, and consequently, that the faculty of vision will, in such a case, be recovered, is what every oculist can assure us of. The loss of the watery humour, is the constant effect of a very common operation in surgery, couching the cataract. Hence we may learn, how we ought to understand these words of the author

The curing of the sick, giving hearing to the deaf, and sight to the blind, were every where talked of

as the usual effects of that holy sepulchre * 1.61.

As therefore the alledged miracles were all of the second class, 'tis only from the attendant circumstances we can judge, whether the facts, tho' acknowledged, were miraculous or not.

In order to enlighten us on this point, I observe, fifthly, That none of the cures were instantaneous. We have not indeed the same hold of the deceased Abbé, as of a living prophet, who pretends to work miracles. Those who attend the latter, can know exactly, to whom he grants the benefit of his mi∣raculous aid. They can judge also, whether the sup∣plicant's recovery be coincident, with the prophet's volition or command. In the former case, we have not access to judge of either; and consequently, there is much greater scope for fancy and credulity to operate. No voice was ever said to have proceeded from the tomb of the blessed deacon, as his votaries styled him. They obtained no audible answer to their prayers. There are however some circum∣stances, by which a probable conjecture may be made concerning the efficiency of the saint in the cures ascribed to him. One is, if the cure instan∣taneously followed the first devotions at the tomb. Supernatural cures differ, in this particular, as much as in any other, from those which are effected by natural means, that they are not gradually, but in∣stantly, perfected. Now of which kind were the cures of St Medard? From the accounts that are given, 'tis evident, that they were gradual. That some of them were sudden, is alledged; but that any

of them were instantaneous, or immediately followed the first application, is not even pretended. All the worshippers at the tomb, persisted for days, several of them for weeks, and some for months successively, daily imploring the intercession of the Abbé, before they received relief from their complaints; and the relief which was received, is, in most cases, ac∣knowledged to have been gradual.

I observe, sixthly, That most of the devotees either had been using medicines before, and continued to use them, during their applications to the saint; or, that their distempers had abated, before they deter∣mined to solicit his help. That the Spanish youth had been using, all the while a medicine prescribed by an eminent oculist, was proved by the depositions of witnesses; that Gautier had begun to recover his sight, before he had recourse to the sepulchre, was attested, not only by his uncle, but even by himself, when, as the Archbishop of Sens informs us, he signed a recantation of what he had formerly ad∣vanced. With regard to the rest, it appears at least probable, from the circumstances of the proof, that they were using the prescriptions of the physicians, whom they had consulted before applying to the dea∣con, and who were afterwards required to give their testimony, concerning the nature and malignancy of the different diseases.

The seventh observation is, That some of the cures attested were incomplete. Th•••• was manifestly the case of the Spaniard, who 〈…〉〈…〉 only from the most inconsiderable part 〈…〉〈…〉 complaint. Even the cure of Mademoisell•• 〈…〉〈…〉, which was as

great a subject of exultation to the partisans of the Abbé as any other, was not complete. Not only was she confined to her bed, for many days, after the de∣crease of her dropsy; but the still remained incapable of moving two of her singers. Silva, physician to the Duke of Orleans, attested this; adding expressly, that he could not look on her as being cured.

The eighth and last observation I shall make on this subject is, That the relief granted some of them was but temporary. This was clearly proved to be the case of the Spanish gentleman. That soon after his return home, he relapsed into his former malady, the prelate I have often quoted, hath, by the certi∣ficates and letters which he procured from Madrid, put beyond controversy. Among these, there are let∣ters from a Spanish grandee, Don Francis Xavier, and from the patient's uncle, besides a certificate signed by himself.

After the above observations, I believe, there will be no occasion for saying much on this subject. The author has, in a note, artfully enough pointed out his aim, that it might not be overlooked by the careless reader * 1.62. "There is another book," says he,

in three volumes, (called Recueil des miracles de l' Abbe Paris,) giving an account of many of these miracles, and accompanied with prefatory dis∣courses, which are very well wrote † 1.63.

He adds,

There runs however, thro' the whole of these a a ridiculous comparison betwixt the miracles of our

Saviour and those of the Abbé; wherein 'tis asserted, that the evidence for the latter is equal to that for the former † 1.64.

At first reading, one is apt, with

surprise, to imagine, that the author is going to make some atonement for the tenets of the essay, by

turning advocate for the miracles of Jesus Christ; and by ••howing, that these are not affected by his doctrine. But on this point we are not long held in suspense. He subjoins,

As, if the testimony of men could ever be put in the balance with that of

God himself, who conducted the pen of the inspi∣red writers.

An ingenious piece of raillery with∣out question. Is it possible, in a politer man∣ner, or in more obliging terms, to tell the Christian world, They are fools; and that all who are silly enough to believe the miracles recorded in scripture, are not intitled to be argued with as men? How? They are so absurd as to believe the scriptures to be the word of God, on the evidence of the miracles wrought by our Lord and his apostles; and that these miracles were wrought, they could not believe on any testimony, less than that of God, reporting them in the scriptures: and thus, by making inspiration and miracles reciprocally foundations to each other, they, in effect, admit both without any foundation at all. After this handsome compliment to the friends of holy writ, he thinks himself at liberty to be very ex∣plicit on the comparative evidence of the miracles of the Abbè, and those of Jesus:

If these writers in∣deed were to be considered merely as human testi∣mony, the French author is very moderate in his comparison; since he might, with some appearance of reason, pretend, that the Jansenist miracles much surpass the other, in evidence and authority.

Was ever so rough an assault, preceded by so smooth, but so insidious a preamble? Is it then still the fate of Jesus to be betrayed with a kiss? But notwithstand∣ing this author's declaration, no Christian will have reason to dread the issue of the comparison. Mr Hume hath not entered on particulars, neither shall I enter on them. I should not incline to tire my rea∣der with repetitions, which, in a minute inquiry,

would be inevitable. I shall therefore only desire him, if he think it needful, to peruse a second time the eight foregoing observations. Let him try the miracles of our Lord by this touch stone; and I persuade myself, he will be satisfied, that there is no appearance of reason to pretend, that the Jansenist miracles much surpass the other, or even equal them, in evidence and authority.

The author triumphs not a little in the observati∣on, that the reports of the prodigies performed by the deacon, were violently opposed by the civil ma∣gistrate, and by the Jesuits, the most learned society in the kingdom. He could see the importance of this circumstance in the the case of Abbè Paris, tho' not in the case of Jesus Christ. But that the differ∣ence of the cases as well as their resemblance, may better appear; it ought likewise to be observed, that Jansenism, tho' not the ruling faction, was at that time the popular faction; that this popularity was not the effect of the miracles of the Abbè, but ante∣cedent to those miracles; that, on the contrary, the Jesuits were extremely unpopular; and that many, who had no more faith in the miracles of Saint Medard than Mr Hume hath, were well pleased to connive at a delusion, which at once plagued and mortified a body of men, that were become almost universally odious.

I shall only add, that nothing could more effec∣tually expose the folly of those pretensions, than the expedient by which they were made to cease: In consequence of an order from the King, the sepulchre was inclosed with a wall, and the votaries were de∣barred

barred from approaching the tomb. The author says, in relation to this * 1.65,

No Jansenist was ever em∣barrassed to account for the cessation of the mira∣cles, when the churchyard was shut up by the Kings edict.

Certain it is, that

God is master of his own graces and works.

But it is equally certain, that neither reason nor the gospel leads us to think, that any human expedient will prove success∣ful, which is calculated to frustrate the decrees of Heaven. Both, on the contrary, teach us, that men never more directly promote the designs of their Maker than when they intend directly to oppose them. It was not thus, that either Pharisees or Sadducees, Jews or Gentiles, succeded in their opposition to the mira∣cles of Jesus and his apostles. The opinion of Gamaliel † 1.66 was undoubtedly judicious: If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye CANNOT overthrow it; beware therefore, lest ye be found fighting even against God. To conclude; Did the Jansenist cause derive any advantage from those preten∣ded miracles? None at all. It even suffered by them. It is justly remarked by Voltaire ‡ 1.67, that

the tomb of the deacon Paris, proved in effect, in the minds of all people of sense, the tomb of Janse∣nism:

How unlike in all respects the miracles recorded by the Evangelists!

THUS I have briefly inquired into the nature and evidence, first of the Pagan, and next of the P••pish miracles, mentioned by Mr Hume; and have, I hope, sufficiently evinced, that the miracles of the New

Testament can suffer nothing by the comparison; that, on the contrary, as, in painting, the shades serve to heighten the glow of the colours; and, in mu∣sic, the discords to set off the sweetness of the har∣mony; so the value of these genuine miracles is en∣hanced by the contrast of those paltry counterseits.

SECTION VI. Abstracting from the evidence for particular facts, we have irrefragable evidence, that there have been miracles in former times; or such events as, when compared with the present constitution of the world, would by Mr Hume be denominated miraculous.

I READILY concur with Mr Hume in maintain∣ing, that when, merely by the force of REASON, we attempt to investigate the origin of worlds * 1.68, we get beyond our sphere, and must infallibly bewilder ourselves in hypothesis and conjecture. REASON in∣deed (which vainly boasts her all-sufficiency) hath sometimes pretended to carry men to this amazing height. But there is ground to suspect, that, in such instances, the ascent of reason, as the author elegant∣ly expresseth it † 1.69, hath been aided by the wings of imagination. If we will not be indebted to REVE∣LATION, for our knowledge of this article, we must, for aught I can percieve, be satisfied to live in igno∣rance. There is, however, one question distinct from the former, tho' akin to it, which, even from the principles of reason, we may with great probabi∣lity

determine. The question I mean is, Whether the world had an origin or not?

That there hath been an infinite, eternal, and in∣dependent series of finite, successive, and dependent beings, such as men, and consequently that the world had no beginning, appears, from the bare considerati∣on of the thing, extremely incredible, if not altoge∣ther absurd. The abstract argument used on this head, might appear too metaphysical and refined: I shall not therefore introduce it; but shall recur to to∣pics which are more familiar, and which, tho' they do not demonstrate, that it is absolutely impossible that the world hath existed from eternity, clearly evince that is highly improbable, or rather, certainly false. These topics I shall only mention, as they are pret∣ty obvious, and have been often urged with great en∣ergy by the learned, both ancient and modern. Such are, the late invention of letters, and of all the scien∣ces and arts by which human life is civilized; the known origin of most nations, states and kingdoms; and the first peopling of many countries. 'Tis in our power at present to trace the history of every people, backwards to times of the greatest barbarity and ig∣norance. Europe, tho' not the largest of the four parts into which the earth is divided, is, on many ac∣counts, the most considerable. But what a different face doth Europe wear at present, from what it wore three thousand years ago? How immense the odds in knowledge, in arts, in policy, in every thing? How easy is the intercourse, and how extensive the acquaintance, which men can now enjoy with all, even the remotest regions of the globe, compared with

what was, or could have been enjoyed, in that time of darkness and simplicity? A man differs not more from a child, than the human race now differs from the human race then. Three thousand years ago, appear indeed to mark a very distant epoch; and yet it is but as yesterday, compared with eternity. This, when duly weighed, every thinking person will ac∣knowledge to be as strong moral evidence, as the subject can admit, (and that I imagine is very strong) that the world had a beginning.

I shall make a supposition, which will perhaps ap∣pear whimsical, but which will tend to elucidate the argument I am enforcing. In antediluvian times, when the longevity of man was such as to include some centuries, I shall suppose, that a few boys had been imported to a desart island, and there left toge∣ther, just old enough to make shift to sustain them∣selves, as those in the golden age are fabled to have done, on acorns, and other spontaneous productions of the soil. I shall suppose, that they had lived there for some hundreds of years, had remembered nothing of their coming into the island, nor of any other person whatsoever; and that thus they had never had access to know, or hear, of either birth or death. I shall suppose them to enter into a serious disquisition con∣cerning their own duration, the question having been started, Whether they had existed from eternity, or had once begun to be? They recur to memory, but memory can furnish them nothing certain or de∣c••sive. If it must be allowed that it contains no trace of beginning of existence, it must also be allowed, that it reaches not beyond a few centuries at most.

They observe besides, concerning this faculty, that the further back it goes, it becomes the more indis∣tinct, terminating at last in confusion and darkness. Some things however they distinctly recollect, and are assured of. They remember, they were once of much lower stature, and of smaller size; they had less bo∣dily strength; and all their mental faculties were wea∣ker. They know, that, in the powers both of bo∣dy and of mind, they have advanced, by impercept∣ible degrees, to the pitch they are now arrived at. These considerations, especially when fortified by some analogous observations they might have made on the growth of herbs and trees, would have shown the probability to be entirely on the side of those who asserted, that their existence had a beginning: And tho', on account of the narrow sphere of their knowledge and experience, the argument could not have appeared to them in all its strength, we, from our long acquain∣tance with nature, even abstracting from our know∣ledge of man in particular, must be satisfied, that it would have been strictly analogical and just. Exactly si∣milar, the very same, I should rather say, is the argument I have been urging for the origination of the species. Make but a few alterations in phraseology: for me∣mory, substitute history and tradition; for hundreds of years, say thousands; for the powers of body and mind, put the arts and sciences; and, with these, and per∣haps one or two more such variations, you will find the argument as applicable in the one case, as in the other. Now, if it be granted, that the human spe∣cies must have had a beginning, it will hardly be que∣stioned, that every other animal species, or even that the universe, must have had a beginning.

BUT in order to prove the proposition laid down in the title of this section, 'tis not necessary to sup∣pose, that the world had a beginning. Admit it had not, and observe the consequence. Thus much must be admitted also, that not barely for a long continued, but for an ETERNAL, succession of generations, mankind were in a state little superior to the beasts; that of a sudden, there came a most astonishing change upon the species; that they exerted talents and capacities, of which there appeared not the smallest vestige, during the eternity preceding; that they acquired such knowledge as procured them a kind of empire, not only over the vegetable and a∣nimal worlds, but even, in some respect, over the elements, and all the unwieldy powers of matter; that, in consequence of this, they were quickly raised, much more above the state they had been formerly and eternally in, than such their former and eternal state was above that of the brute creation. If such a revolution in nature, such a thorough, general, and sudden change as this, would not be denominated miraculous, 'tis not in my power to conceive what would. I could not esteem it a greater miracle, hardly so great, that any species of beasts, which have hitherto been doomed to tread the earth, should now get wings, and float about in the air.

Nor will this plea be subverted by that trite ob∣jection, That mankind may have been as much en∣lightened, perhaps myriads of years ago, as they are at present; but that by some universal calamity, such as deluge or conflagration, which, after the rotation of many centuries, the earth possibly becomes liable

to, all traces of crudition and of science, all traces both of the elegant and of the useful arts, may have been effaced, and the human race, springing from a few who had escaped the common ruin, may have emerged anew, out of barbarity and ignorance. This hypothesis doth but substitute one miracle in the place of another. Such general disorder is en∣tirely unconformable to our experience of the course of nature. Accordingly the destruction of the world by a deluge, the author hath numbered among those prodigies, or miracles, which render the Pentate••ch perfectly incredible.

IF, on the contrary, we admit, that the world had a beginning, (and will not every thinking person acknowledge, that this position is much more pro∣bable than the contrary?) the production of the world must be ascribed either to chance, or to in∣telligence.

Shall we derive all things, spiritual and corporeal, from a principle so insignificant as blind chance? Shall we say, with Epicurus, that the fortuitous course of rambling atoms hath reared this beautiful and stupendous fabric? In that case, perhaps, we should give an account of the origin of things, which, most people will think, could not properly be styled miraculous. But is it, because the formation of a grand and regular system in this way, is conformable to the experienced order of nature? Quite the re∣verse. Nothing can be more repugnant to universal experience, than that the least organic body, not to mention the glorious frame of nature, should be pro∣duced

by such a casual jumble. It has therefore, in the highest degree possible, that particular quality of miracles, from which, according to the author's the∣ory, their incredibility results, and may doubtless, in this loose acceptation of the word, be termed mira∣culous. But should we affirm, that, to account thus for the origin of the universe, is to account for it by miracle; we should be thought, I'm afraid, to speak both weakly and improperly. There is something here, if I may so express myself, which is far beyond the miraculous; something, for which I know not whether any language can afford a proper appellation, unless it be the general appellations of absurdity and nonsense.

Shall we then at last recur to the common doctrine, that the world was produced by an intelligent cause? On this supposition also, tho' incomparably the most rational, it is evident, that in the creation, formation, or first production of things, call it by what name you please, a power must have been exerted, which, in respect of the present course of nature, may be styled miraculous. I intend not to dispute about a word, nor to inquire, whether that term can, in strict propriety, be used of any exertions before the esta∣blishment of the laws of nature. I use the word in the same latitude, in which the author commonly useth it in his reasoning, for every event that is not conformable to that course of nature with which we are acquainted by experience.

WHETHER, therefore, the world had, or had not, a beginning; whether, on the first supposition, the

production of things be ascribed to chance, or to de∣sign; whether, on the second, in order to solve the numberless objections that arise, we do, or do not, recur to universal catastrophes; there is no possibility of accounting for the phenomena that presently come under our notice, without having at last recourse to MIRACLES; that is, to events altogether uncon∣sormable, or, if you will, contrary to the present course of nature known to us by experience. I cannot conceive an hypothesis, which is not reducible to one or other of those above-mentioned. Whoever imagines, that another might be framed, which is not comprehended in any of those, and which hath not as yet been devised by any system-builder; let him make the experiment, and I will venture to prognosticate, that he will still find himself clogged with the same difficulty. The conclusion therefore above deduced, may be justly deemed, till the con∣trary is shown, to be not only the result of one, but alike of every hypothesis, of which the subject is sus∣ceptible.

THUS it hath been evinced, as was proposed, that abstracting from the evidence for particular facts, we have irrefragable evidence, that there have been, that there must have been, miracles in former times, or such events, as when, compared with the present constitution of the world, would by Mr Hume be de∣nominated miraculous.

SECTION VII. Revisal of Mr Hume's examination of the Pentateuch.

ALLOWING to the conclusion deduced in the foregoing section its proper weight, I shall also take into consideration the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses; or rather, I shall endeavour impartially to revise the examination which those books have already undergone by the essayist * 1.70. It is, in this case, of the greatest importance to know, whether the evidence on both sides hath been fairly stated.

"HERE then we are first to consider a book," which is acknowledged, on all hands, to be the most ancient record in the world, "presented to us," we admit, "by a barbarous and ignorant people † 1.71," at the same time exhibiting a system of Theism, or natural religion, which is both rational and sublime; with which nothing that was ever compiled or pro∣duced, on this subject, in the most enlightened ages, by the most learned and polished nations, who were unacquainted with that book, will bear to be compa∣red.

Mr Hume himself must allow, that this remark

deserves attention, since his reasoning in another per∣formance, which he calls, The natural history of reli∣gion, would lead us to expect the contrary. He there maintains, that Polytheism and Idolatry are, and must be, the religion of rude and barbarous, and consequently of ancient ages; that the true prin∣ciples of Theism, or the belief of one almighty and wise Being, the creator, the preserver, and the ruler of heaven and earth, results from the greatest improve∣ments of the understanding in philosophy and science. To suppose the contrary, says he, is supposing, that

while men were ignorant and barbarous, they discovered truth; but fell into error, as soon as they acquired learning and politeness * 1.72.

This reasoning is just, where-ever religion is to be con∣sidered as the result of human reflections. What account then will the author give of this wonderful exception? That the reverse is here the case, it is impossible for him to dissemble. The people he himself calls ignorant and barbarous; yet they are not idolaters or polytheists. At the time when the book, which he examines, was composed, he seems to think, they even exceeded themselves in barbarity; yet the sentiments of these barbarians on the subject of religion, the sentiments which that very book presents to us, may well put to silence the wisdom of the politest nations on earth. Need I re∣mind Mr Hume of his express declaration, that if a ••aveller were transported into any unknown region, and found the inhabitants

ignorant and barbarous, he might before hand declare them idolaters, and

there is scarce a POSSIBILITY of his being mista∣ken † 1.73?

I know no satisfactory account that can be given of this exception, on the principles of the essayist. Nevertheless, nothing is more easy, than to give a satisfactory account of it, on the Christian principles. This account is that which is given by the book itself. It is, that the religious tenets of that nation were not the result of their reasonings, but proceeded from divine revelation. The contrast we discern betwixt the ISRAELITES, and the ancient GREEKS and ROMANS, is remarkable. The GRFEKS and ROMANS, on all the subjects of human erudition, on all the liberal and the useful arts, rea∣soned like men; on the subject of religion, they prated like children. The ISRAELITES, on the contrary, in all the sciences and arts, were children; but, in their notions of religion, they were men; in the doctrines, for example, of the unity, the eternity, the omnipotence, the omniscience, the omnipresence, the wisdom, and the goodness of God; in their opinions concerning providence, and creation, the preservation and government of the world; opinions so exalted and comprehensive, as, even by the au∣thor's acknowledgment, could never enter into the thoughts of barbarians.

But to proceed in the revisal: We have here a book, says the essayist, "wrote in all probability long after the facts it relates." That this book was written long after some of the facts it relates, is not in∣deed denied: that it was written long after all, or even most of those facts, I see no reason to believe. If

Mr Hume meant to signify, by the expression quo∣ted, that this was in all probability the case, why did he not produce the grounds on which the probability is founded? Shall a bold assertion pass for argument? or can it be expected, that any one should consider reasons, which are only in general supposed, but not specified?

He adds,

corroborated by no concurring testimo∣ny;

as little, say I, invalidated by any contradict∣ing testimony; and both, for this plain reason, be∣cause there is no human composition, that can be compared with this, in respect of antiquity. But tho' this book is not corroborated by the concurrent testimony of any coeval histories, because, if there ever were such histories, they are not now extant; it is not therefore destitute of all collateral evidence. The following examples of this kind of evidence de∣serve some notice. The division of time into weeks, which hath obtained in many countries, for instance among the Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, and nor∣thern barbarians; nations whereof some had little or no intercourse with others, and were not even known by name to the Hebrews * 1.74: the tradition which in

several places prevailed concerning the primeval chaos from which the world arose, the production of all living creatures out of water and earth, by the efficiency of a supreme mind * 1.75, the formation of

man last of all, in the image of God, and his being vested with dominion over the other animals, the

primitive state of innocence and happiness: the sub∣sequent degeneracy of mankind: their destruction by a flood: and the preservation of one family in a vessel. Nay, which is still stronger, I might plead the vesti∣ges of some such catastrophe as the deluge, which the shells and other marine bodies, that are daily dug out of the bowels of the earth, in places remote from the sea, do clearly exhibit to us: I might urge the traces, which still remain in ancient histories, of the migration of people and of science from Asia (which hath not improperly been styled the cradle of the arts) into many parts both of Africa and Europe: I might plead the coincidence of those migrations, and of the origin of states and kingdoms, with the time of the dispersion of the posterity of Noah.

But to return: The author subjoins,

resem∣bling those fabulous accounts, which every nation gives of its origin.

'Tis unluckily the fate of ho∣ly writ with this author that both its resemblance,

and its want of resemblance, to the accounts of other authors, are alike presumptions against it. He hath not indeed told us, wherein it resembles fabulous ac∣counts: and, for my part, tho' the charge were just I should imagine, little or nothing to the disadvantage of the Pentateuch, could be deduced from it. It is u∣niversally agreed among the learned, that even the most absurd fables of idolaters, derive their origin from facts, which having been, in barbarous ages, transmitted only by oral tradition, have come at length to be grossly corrupted and disfigured. 'Tis nevertheless probable, that such fictions would still retain some stricking features of those truths, from which they sprung. And if the books of Moses re∣semble, in any thing, the fabulous accounts of other nations, it would not perhaps be difficult to prove, that they resemble only whatever is least fabulous in these accounts. That this will be found to be the case, we may reasonably presume, even from what hath been observed already; and if so, the resem∣blance, so far from being an argument against those books, is evidently an argument in their favour. In order to remove any doubt that may remain on this head, it ought to be attended to, that, in a num∣ber of concurrent testimonies, (where there could have been no previous concert) there is a probability in∣dependent of that which results from our faith in the witnesses: nay, should the witnesses be of such a cha∣racter as to merit no faith at all. This probability ariseth from the concurrence itself. That such a con∣currence should spring from chance, is as one to infinite, in other words, morally impossible: if therefore con∣cert be excluded, there remains no other cause but the reality of the fact.

'Tis true, that

upon reading this book, we find it ful of prodigies and miracles:

but 'tis also true, that many of those miracles are such, as the subject it treats of, must unavoidably make us expect. For a proof of this position, I need but refer the reader to the principles established in the preceding section. No book in the world do we find written in a more simple style; no where does there appear in it, the least affectation of ornament; yet nowhere else is the Almighty represented, as either acting or speak∣ing in a manner so becoming the eternal ruler of the world. Compare the account of the CREATION which is given by Moses, with the ravings of San∣choniatho the Phenician philosopher, which he had dignified with the title of COSMOGONY: or compare it with the childish extravagancies of the Greek and Latin poets, so justly likened by the author to a sick man's dreams * 1.76; and then say, whether any person of candour and discernment will not be disposed to ex∣claim in the word, of the prophet, What is the CHAFF to the WHEAT † 1.77! The account is what we should call in reference to experience, miraculous. But was it possible it should be otherwise? I believe the greatest infidel will not deny, that it is at least as plausible an opinion that the world had a be∣gining, as that it had not. If it had, can it be imagined by any man in his senses, that that particu∣lar quality should be an objection to the narrative, which he previously knows it must have? Must not the first production of things, the original formation of animals and vegetables, require exertions of pow∣er,

which, in preservation and propagation, can never be exemplified?

It will perhaps be objected, That if the miracles continued no longer, and extended no further, than the necessity of creation required, this reasoning would be just; but that in fact they both continued much longer, and extended much further. The answer is obvious: it is impossible for us to judge, how far the necessity of the case required. Immediately af∣ter the creation, things must have been in a state ve∣ry different from that which they are in at present. How long that state might continue, we have not the means of discovering: but as, in human in∣fancy, 'tis necessary that the feeble creature should, for some time, be carried in the nurse's arms, and afterwards, by the help of leading strings, be kept from falling, before he acquire, strength to walk; 'tis not unlikely, that in the infancy of the world, such interpositions should be more frequent and requisite, till nature attainining a certain maturity, those laws and that constitution should be established, which we now experience. It will greatly strengthen this conclusion, to reflect, that in every species of natural productions, with which we are acquainted, we invariably observe a similar feebleness in the indivi∣duals on their first appearance, and a similar gradation towards a state of greater perfection and stability. Be∣sides, if we acknowledge the necessity of the exerti∣on of a power, which only in reference to our expe∣rience is called miraculous, the question, as is well observed by the judicious prelate formerly quoted * 1.78,

whether this power stopped immediately, after it

had made man, or went on and exerted itself farther, is a question of the same kind, as whether an or∣dinary power exerted itself in such a particular de∣gree and manner, or not.

It cannot therefore, if we think reasonably on this subject, greatly astonish us, that such a book should give

an account of a state of the world, and of human nature, entirely different from the present; of our fall from that state; of the age of man extended to near a thousand years; and of the destruction of the world by a de∣luge.

Finally, if, in such a book, mingled with the ex∣cellencies I have remarked, there should appear some difficulties, some things for which we are not able to account; for instance,

the arbitrary choice of one people, as the favourites of Heaven; and their deliverance from bondage by prodigies the most astonishing imaginable;

is there any thing more extraordinary here, than, in a composition of this nature, we might have previously expected to find? We must be immoderately conceited of our own un∣derstandings, if we imagine otherwise. Those fa∣vourites of Heaven, it must be likewise owned, are the countrymen of the writer; but of such a writer, as of all historians or annalists, ancient or modern, shows the least disposition to flatter his countrymen. Where, I pray, do we find him, either celebrating their virtues, or palliating their vices; either extolling their genius, or magnifying their exploits? Add to all these, that, in every thing which is not expressly ascribed to the interposal of Heaven, the relation is in itself plausible, the incidents are natural, the cha∣racters

and manners such as are admirably adapted to those early ages of the world. In these particulars, there is no affectation of the marvellous; there are no

descriptions of sea and land monsters; no relations of wonderful adventures, strange men, and un∣couth manners * 1.79.

WHEN all these things are seriously attended to, I persuade myself, that no unprejudiced person will think, that the Pentateuch bears falsehood on the face of it, and deserves to be rejected without ex∣amination. On the contrary, every unprejudiced person will find (I say not, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, then all the miracles it relates; this is a language which I do not understand, and which only serves to darken a plain question; but I say, he will find) very many and very strong in∣dications of authenticity and truth; and will con∣clude, that all the evidences, both intrinsic and ex∣trinsic, by which it is supported, ought to be im∣partially canvassed. Abundant evidences there are of both kinds; some hints of them have been given in this section; but to consider them fully, falls not within the limits of my present purpose.

Notes

• * 1.1

  p. 173.
• * 1.2

  Acts ii. 22.
• † 1.3

  p. 185.
• * 1.4

  p. 185.
• † 1.5

  Job. xiii. 7, 8.
• * 1.6

  Rom. v. 6. &c.
• † 1.7

  Acts ii. 32. &c. v. 30. &c. x. 40. &c.
• ‡ 1.8

  1 John ii. 1.
• § 1.9

  Acts x. 42. xvii. 31.
• ‖ 1.10

  John xiv. 3.
• * 1.11

  p. 200.
• * 1.12

  p. 204. in the note.
• † 1.13

  p. 205 in the note.
• † 1.14

  Should the author insist, that such miracles are nevertheless meant to establish, if not a new system, at least some new point of religion; that those which are wrought in Spain, for example, are not intended as proofs of the gospel, but as proofs of the effica∣cy of a particular crucifix or relic; which is always a new point, or at least not universally received: I must beg the reader will consider, what is the meaning of this expression, a new point of re∣ligion. It is not a new system, 'tis not even a new doctrine. We know, that one article of faith in the church of Rome is, that the images and relics of saints ought to be worshipped. We know also, that in proof of this article, 'tis one of their principal argu∣ments, that miracles are wrought by means of such relics and i∣mages. We know further, that that church never attempted to enumerate her relies and other trumpery, and thus to ascertain the individual objects of the adoration of her votaries. The pro∣ducing therefore a new relic, image or crucifix, as an object of wor∣ship, implies not the smallest deviation from the faith established; at the same time the opinion, that miracles are performed by means of such relic, ima••e, or crucifix, proves, in the minds of the people, for the reason assigned, a very strong confirmation of the faith established. All such mira••les therefore must be considered, as wrought in support of the received superstition, and accordingly are always favoured by the popular prejudices.
• * 1.15

  Alcoran. The chapter—of the cow,—of Jonas,—of Hud.
• † 1.16

  —Of cattle,—of the spoils,—of the prophets. That the Alcoran bears a very strong resemblance to the Talmud is indeed evident; but I hardly think, we can have a more striking instance of the prejudices of modern infidels, than in their comparing this motley composition to the writings of the Old and New Testa∣ment. Let the reader but take the trouble to peruse the history of Joseph by Mahomet, which is the subject of a very long chap∣ter, and to compare it with the account of that patriarch given by Moses, and if he doth not perceive at once the immense inferio∣rity of the former, I shall never, for my part, undertake by ar∣gument to convince him of it. To me it appears even almost in∣credible, that the most beautiful and most affecting passages of holy writ, should be so wretchedly disfigured by a writer whose intention, we are certain was not to burlesque them. But that every reader may be qualified to form some notion of this mira∣cle of a book, I have subjoined a specimen of it, from the chapter of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉; where we are informed particularly of the cause of the visit which the queen of Sheba (there called Saba) made to Solomon, and of the occasion of her conversion from idolatry. I have not selected this passage on account of any special futility to be found in it, for the like absurdities may be observed in every page of the performance; but I have selected it, because it is short, and because it contains a distinct story which bears some relation to a passage of scripture. I use Mr Sale's version, which is the latest and the most approved, omitting only, for the sake of brevity, such supplementary expressions, as have been without necessity in∣serted by the translator.

  Solomon was David's heir; and he said, O men, we have been taught the speech of birds, and have had all things bestowed on us; this is manifest excellence. And his armies were gathered together to Solomon, consisting of genii, and men, and birds; and they were led in distinct ••ands, till they came to the valley of ants. An ant said, O ants, enter ye into your habitations, lest Solomon and his ar∣my tread you under foot and perceive it not. He smiled, laugh∣ing at her words, and said, O Lord, excite me, that I may be thankful for thy favour, wherewith thou hast favoured me, and my parents; and that I may do that which is right and well pleasing to thee: and introduce me, thro' thy mercy a∣mong thy servants the righteous. And he viewed the birds, and said, What is the reason that I see not the lapwing? Is she absent? Verily I will chastise her with a severe chastisement, or I will put her to death; unless she bring me a just excuse. And she tarried not long, and said, I have viewed that which thou hast not viewed; and I come to thee from Saba, with a certain piece of news. I found a woman to reign over them, who is provided with every thing, and hath a magnificent throne. I sound her and her people to wor∣ship the sun, besides God: and Satan hath prepared their works for them, and hath turned them aside from the way, (where∣fore they are not directed) lest they should worship God, who bringeth to light that which is hidden in heaven and earth, and knoweth whatever they conceal, and whatever they disco∣ver. God! there is no God but he; the Lord of the magni∣ficent throne. He said, We shall see whether thou hast spo∣ken the truth or whether thou art a liar. Go with this my letter, and cast it down to them; then turn aside from them, and wait for their answer. The queen said, O nobles, verily an honourable letter hath been delivered to me; it is from So∣lomon, and this is the tenour thereof. In the name of the most merciful God, rise not up against me: but come, and surrender your∣selves to me. She said, O nobles, advise me in my business: I will not resolve on any thing, till ye be witness thereof. They answered, We are endued with strength, and endued with great prowess in war; but the command appertaineth to thee: see therefore what thou wilt command. She said, Verily kings, when they enter a city, waste the same, and abase the most powerful of the inhabitants thereof: and so will these do. But I will send gifts to them: and will wait for what those who shall be sent, shall bring back. And when the embassador came to Solomon, that prince said, Will ye present me with riches? Verily that which God hath given me is better than what he hath given you: but ye glory in your gifts. Return to your people. We will surely come to them with forces which they shall not be able to withstand; and we will drive them out humbled; and they shall be contemptible. And So∣lomon said, O nobles, which of you will bring me her throne, before they come and surrender themselves to me? A terrible genius answered, I will bring it thee, before thou arise from thy place. And one with whom was the knowledge of the scripture said, I will bring it to thee, in the twinkling of an eye. And when Solomon saw it placed before him, he said, This is a favour of my Lord, that he may make trial of me, whether I will be grateful, or whether I will be ungrateful: and he who is grateful, is grateful to his own advantage; but if any shall be ungrateful, verily my Lord is self-sufficient and munificent. And he said, Alter her throne that she may not know it, to the end we may see whether she be directed, or whether she be of those who are not directed. And when she was come, it was said, Is thy throne like this? She answered, As though it were the same. And we have had knowledge be∣stowed on us before this, and have been resigned. But that which she worshipped besides God, had turned her aside, for she was of an unbelieving people. It was said to her, Enter the pa∣lace. And when she saw it, she imagined it to be a great wa∣ter, and she discovered her legs. Solomon said, Verily this is a palace, evenly floored with glass. She said, O Lord, verily I have dealt unjustly with my own soul; and I resign myself together with Solomon, to God, the Lord of all creatures.

  Thus poverty of sentiment, monstrosity of invention, which al∣ways betokens a distempered not a rich imagination, and in re∣spect of diction the most turgid verbosity, so apt to be mistaken by persons of a viciated taste for true sublimity, are the genuine characteristics of the book. They appear almost in every line. The very titles and epithets assigned to god not exempt from them. The Lord of the daybreak, the Lord of the magnificent throne, the King of the day of judgment, &c. They are pompous and in∣significant. If the language of the Alcoran, as the Mahometans pretend, is indeed the language of God, the thoughts are but too evidently the thoughts of men. The reverse of this is the cha∣racter of the Bible. When God speaks to men, 'tis reasonable to think that he addresses them in their own language. In the Bible you will find nothing inflated, nothing affected in the style. The words are human, but the sentiments are divine. Accordingly there is perhaps no book in the world, as hath been often justly observed, which suffers less by a literal translation into any other language.
• * 1.17

  It is observable, that Mahomet was very much harassed by the demands and reasonings of his opposers with regard to mira∣cles. They were so far from despising this evidence, that they considered the power of working miracles as a never-failing badge of the prophetical office; and therefore often assured him, by the most solemn oaths and protestations, that they would submit impli∣citly ••o his guidance in religion, if he would once gratify them in this particular. This artful man, who doth not seem to have been of the same opinion with the essayist, that it was easy for cunning and impudence to impose, in a matter of this kind, on the credu∣lity of the multitude, even though an ignorant and barbarous mul∣titude, absolutely refused to subject his mission to so hazardous a trial. There is no subject he more frequently recurs to in his Alcoran, being greatly interested to remove the doubts, which were raised in the minds of many by his disclaiming this power; a power which till then had ever been looked upon as the preroga∣tive of the prophets. The following are some of the reasons, with which he endcavours to satisfy the people on this head. 1st, The sovereignty of God, who is not to be called to account for what he gives or with-holds. 2d, The usefulness of miracles, because every man is foreordained either to believe, or to remain in un∣belief; and this decree no miracles could alter. 3d. The experi∣enced inefficacy of miracles in former times. 4th, The mercy of God, who had denied them this evidence, because the sin of their incredulity, in case he had granted it, would have been so hei∣nous, that he could not have respited or tolerated them any lon∣ger. 5th, The abuse to which miracles would have been exposed from the infidels, who would have either charged them with im∣posture, or imputed them to magic. See the chapters—of cattle, —of thunder,—of All Hejir,—of the night-journey,—of the spi∣der,—of the prophets.
• * 1.18

  ••e l'esprit des loix, liv. 25. chap. 2
• † 1.19

  How great influence this motive had, appears from Luke iv. ••5 &c. and from Act. xxii. 21, 22.
• * 1.20

  Dr Middleton's presatory discourse to his letter from Rome.
• * 1.21

  Hist. of Great Britain, James I. chap. 1.
• * 1.22

  Perhaps it will be pleaded that the working of miracles was considered by the leaders in the reformation as a Popish artifice, and as therefore worthy of being discarded with the other abuses which Popery had introduced. That this was not the light in which miracles were viewed by Luther, who justly possesses the first place in the list of reformers, is evident from the manner in which he argues against Muncer, the apostle of the Anabaptists. This man, without ordination, had assumed the office of a Chris∣tian pastor. Against this conduct Luther remoustrates, as being in his judgment, an usurpation of the sacred function. "Let him be asked," says he,

  Who made him teacher of religion? If he answers, God; let him prove it by a visible miracle: for 'tis by such signs that God declares himself, when he gives an extraordinary mission.

  When this argument was afterwards retorted on himself by the Romanists, who desired to know how his own vocation, originally limited and dependent, had become not only unlimited, but quite independent of the hierarchy, from which he had received it; his reply was, That the intrepidity, with which he had been enabled to brave so many dangers, and the success, with which his enterprse had been crowned, ought to be regarded as miraculous: And indeed most of his followers were of this opinion. But whether this opinion was erroneous, or whether the argument against Muncer was conclusive, 'tis not my business to enquire. Thus much is evident from the story: first, That this reformer, far from rejecting miracles as a Romish trick, acknowledged, that in some religious questions, they are the only medium of proof; secondly, That notwithstanding this, he never attempted, by a show of miracles, to impose on the sen∣ses of his hearers; (if they were deceived in thinking that his success and magnanimity were miraculous, 'twas not their senses, but their understanding that was deceived); lastly, That the Anabaptists themselves, tho' perhaps the most outrageous fanatics that ever existed, did not pretend to the power of working mira∣cles.—Sleidan lib. 5. Luth. De votis monast. &c. Epist. ad Frid. Sax. Ducem. ap. Chytraeum.
• * 1.23

  p. 190, &c.
• * 1.24

  Acts xiv. 8. &c
• * 1.25

  p. 183.
• * 1.26

  p. 197. in the note.
• † 1.27

  ib
• ‡ 1.28

  p. 197.
• § 1.29

  p. 196. in the note.
• ‖ 1.30

  p. 199. in the note.
• * 1.31

  p. 197. in the note.
• * 1.32

  p. 199. in the note.
• * 1.33

  p. 195.
• † 1.34

  p. 197. in the note.
• ‡ 1.35

  p. 175.
• § 1.36

  p. 196. in the note.
• * 1.37

  James I. chap. 2.
• † 1.38

  p 188. &c.
• * 1.39

  The learned and judicious author of the Observations on the conversion and apostleship of Saint Paal, hath inad ••antly said of Alexander, that he introduced a new god into Pontus. The truth is, he only exhibited a reproduction of Esculapius, a well known deity in those parts, to whom he gave indeed the new name GLY∣CON. In this there was nothing unsuitable to the genius of the mythology. Accordingly, we do not find, that either the priests, or the people, were in the least alarmed for the religion of the country, or charged Alexander as an innovator in religious matters. On the contrary, the greatest enemies he had to en∣counter, were not the religionists, but the latitudinarians.
• * 1.40

  p. 292, &c.
• * 1.41

  Auctoritas, et quasi majestas quaedam, ut scilicet inopinate et adhuc novo principi decrat, haec quoque accessit. SUETON
• * 1.42

  Queis coelestis favor, et quaedam in Vespasianum inclinatio ••nminum ostenderetur.
• † 1.43

  Quem dedita superstitionibus gens ante alios colit.
• ‡ 1.44

  Vocibus adulantium in spent induci.
• * 1.45

  Qui interfuere.—Quae astabat multit•• do.
• * 1.46

  Huic non exesam vim luminis, et redituram, si pellerentur obstantia: illi elapsos in pravum artus, si salubris vis adhibeatur, posse integrari.
• † 1.47

  Manum aeger. TACITUS. Debili crure. SUETONIUS. Mr Hume, in the last edition of the Essay mentions Suetonius, but takes no notice of this difference between his account and that of Tacitus.
• * 1.48

  p. 193. &c.
• * 1.49

  L'on m'y montra un homme, qui s••rvoit a allumer les lam∣pes, qui y sont en nombre prodligieux; et I'on me dit, qu'on l'y avoit vu sept ans a la porte de cette eglise, avec une seule jambe. Je l'y vis avec deux. Liv. 4. l'an 1654.
• * 1.50

  Since finishing this tract, I have seen an edition of Mr Hume's essays, &c. later than that here resered to. It is prin∣ted at London 1760. I must do the author the justice to ob∣serve, that, in this edition, he hath corrected the mistake, as to the cardinal's examining the man's leg, of which he only "says, The cardinal assures us, that he saw him with two legs." He still calls him a door-keeper, and says, that he had served twenty years in this capacity.
• * 1.51

  This perhaps will appear to some to be too severe a censure on a country called Christian, and may be thought to reflect on Christianity itself. I do not think it fairly capable of such a con∣struction. That the corruption of the best things produces the worst, hath grown into a proverb; and, on the most impartial inquiry, I do not imagine it will be sound, that any species of ido∣latry ever tended so directly, to extirpate humanity, gratitude, natural affection, equity, mutual confidence, good faith, and e∣very amiable and generous principle from the human breast, as that gross perversion of the Christian religion which is established in Spain. It might casily be shown, that the human sacrifices of∣fered by Heathens, had not half the tendency to corrupt the heart, and consequently deserve not to be viewed with half the horror, as those celebrated among the Spaniards, with so much pomp, and barbarous festivity, at an auto da fe. It will not surely be affirmed, that our Saviour reflected on the Mosaic institution, or genuine Judaism, when he said, We unto you scribes and Pharisecs, hypocrites; for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when be is made, Y•• MAK•• him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Yet the words plainly imply, that even Pagans, by being con∣verted to the Judaism that was then professed, were made chil∣dren of hell, and consequently corrupted, instead of being re∣formed. See Matth. xxiii 15.
• * 1.52

  Essai sur l'histoire generale, chap. 118.
• * 1.53

  De l'esprit des loix, liv. 25. chap. 13.
• * 1.54

  The character of his book is very justly and very briefly ex∣pressed in Le 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de Louis XIV. in these words:

  Since livre subsistait un jour, et que le••autres suffent persus, la posterite croirait que notre siecle a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 un tems de 〈…〉〈…〉.

  chap. ••••.
• * 1.55

  Essai far l'histoire generale, chap 21.
• † 1.56

  It must be owned that the author of the Recueil after-men∣tioned, hath presented us with a much greater number; but let is be remarked, that that author doth not confine himself to the cures performed openly at the tomb of the deacon; he gives us also those that were wrought in the private chambers of the sick, by virtue of his relies, by images of him, or by earth brought from under his monument. Nor is the collection restricted only to the cur•••• effected by the fairt; it includes also the judgments inflicted by him.
• * 1.57

  p. 195.
• † 1.58

  ib.
• * 1.59

  p. 197. in the note,
• * 1.60

  p. 181. in the note.
• * 1.61

  p. 195.
• * 1.62

  p. 196.
• † 1.63

  I am surprised that Mr Hume hath taken no notice of the profound erudition displayed in the Recueil, as I imagine its au∣thor is much more eminent for this, than for his talent in wri∣ting. Besides, his learning deserves our regard the more, that it is of a kind rarely to be met with in the present century. Where shall we find in these dregs of the ages, to adopt his own emphatical expression, such an extensive knowledge, as he hath exhibited, of all the monkish and legendary writings of the dark∣est and most barbarous, or, according to him, the most devout ages of the church? Or whence else, but from those productons, could he have selected such admirable materials for his work? The lives and writings of the saints are an inexhaustible treasure for a performance of this kind. 'Tis true, St Mathew, St Mark, St Luke, and St John, have said little to his purpose, and he makes as little use of them. But is not this want richly suppli∣ed in St Cudbert, St Edildride, St Willibrord, St Baudri, and five hundred others of equal note? One thing however I would gladly be informed of, being utterly at a loss to account for it. What intitled this author, who seems not to be deficient in a ve∣neration truly catholic for ignorance, superstition, and barbarism, to speak contemptibly of Capgravius, Colganus, and Jacobus de Voragine author of The golden legend? To be plain with him, this is a freedom which doth not at all become him: for of the sew readers in this age, who happen to be acquainted with the autho∣rities quoted in the Recueil, most, if not all, will, I'm afraid, be of opinion, that the writers last mentioned are fully as credible, not less famous, and much more ingenious, than many of those to whom he is so greatly indebted for his most extraordinary nar∣rative. Was it for him then to scandalize these few? 'Tis pity that a writer of such uncommon reading and application should act so inconsistently, and undermine his own cause. But passing his literature, which is unquestionable, I shall give the reader a specimen of his talent in disputation. To the objection that had been made, that the miracles of the deacon were gradual, he re∣plies, "So was the creation, the first of miracles, which employed no less than six days." As all that was done in that time, is comprehended under one name, THE CREATION, he concludes ve∣ry sagely, that it ought to be denominated one miracle. A wri∣ter of this stamp would no doubt despise the answer which an ordinary reader might make him,—first, That every single pro∣duction was a perfect miracle,—secondly, That nothing could be more instantaneous than those productions, God said, let there be light, and there was light, &c.—and lastly, That the world was not created by the ministration of man, nor in the presence of men, nor in order to serve as evidence of any doctrine. I must be forgiven to remark, that in the whole of this author's reply, he hath unfortunately mistaken the meaning of the objectors, who intend not to say, that God may not perform a miracle gra∣dually, but that what is so performed, hath not the same evi∣dence of its being miraculous, as what is done in an instant, and therefore cannot so well serve as evidence of any doctrine. Now that the miracles of Monsieur de Paris were intended as evidence of his doctrine, and consequently of that of the appellants from the bull Unigenitus, he every where vehemently maintains. Ano∣ther specimen of this author's acuteness and ingenuity I shall give in a literal translation from his own words.

  But, it will be said, in the earliest times of the church, miraculous cures were commonly perfected in an instant. True; and 'tis this which confirms my doctrine. As it was ordinary then, to convert great sinners all of a sudden. But such wonders in both kinds are for the commencement of the church, or for the renovation promised her. In these days, which the French clergy have justly styled the dregs of the ages, 'tis much that God convert many sinners, and cure many sick, by slow degrees, at the same time that he shows by some more shining exam∣ples that his arm is not shortened.
• † 1.64

  I am sorry to be again so soon laid under the necessity of ob∣serving, that the essayist, by confiding too much in his memory, often injures the writers whom he quot••••. It is but doing justice to the author of the Recueil, to observe, that he hath, in no part of his performance, asserted that the evidence for the miracles of Monsieur de Paris is equal to that for the miracles of Jesus Christ. Perhaps my reader will be surprised when I tell him, for I own I was exceedingly surprised when I discovered, that he hath not only in the plainest terms asserted, but strenuously maintained, the contrary. And for this purpose he hath employ∣ed no less than twelve pages of his work. He introduces the subject (Discourse 2. part 1.) with observing, that he and the rest of his party had been traduced by their adversaries, as equal∣ling the miracles of the deacon to those of our Saviour. The im∣piety of such a comparison he mentions with horror, and treats the charge as an absolute calumny. Hence he takes occasion to enuinerate those peculiar circumstances in the miracles of our Lord, which gave them an eminent superiority, not only over those of his saint, but over those of every other saint, or prophet whatsoever. To this enumeration he subjoins, Tous ••••ux qui re∣courent à Monsieur de Paris n•• sont pas gueris, nous dit-on; plu∣si••urs ne le sont qu'en partie, ou d'une maniere l••nte, et moins eclatante; il n'a point ressuscite de morts. Que s'ensuit il de-la, sinon que les miracles que Dieu a operes par lui sont infericurs a c••ux que n••tre Seign••ur a operes par lui meme? Nous l'avouons, nous inculquons cette verite.

  All those, we are told, who re∣cur to Monsieur de Paris are not cured; several are cured but in part, or in a slow and less striking manner; he hath raised no dead. What follows, unless that the miracles which God wrought by him, are inferior to those which our Lord wrought by himself? We acknowledge, we inculcate this truth.

  Afterwards, speaking of evidence, he owns also, that the miracles of the deacon are not equally certain with those of Jesus Christ. The latter, he says, are more certain in many respects. He specifies the natural notoriety of some of the facts, the public and instantaneous manner in which most of them were offected, the number, the quality, the constancy of the witnesses, and the serced acknowledgement of his most spite∣ful enemies. He concludes this subject in these memorable terms. Au reste ce que je viens d'exposer sur la supériorité des merveilles operes par le Sauveur, je l'avois reconnu avec plaisir dans le premier discours. J'y ai dit en propres termes, qu'il y a∣voit une difference in nie entre les miracles de Jesus Christ et ceux de Monsieur de Paris. J'ai promis de ne jamais oubl••er cette diffe∣rence, et j'ai tenu parole. J'ai remarque, dans le lieu ou il con∣venoit de le faire, que cette difference infine regardoit l'evidence des prodiges aussi bien que leur grandeur; et que les incredules pouvoient nous dire, que ceux que nous produisions n'ont point le meme eclat qu'ont cu ceux de notre Seigneur.

  Finally what I have just now evinced on the superiority of the wonders per∣formed by our Lord, I had acknowledged with pleasure in the first discourse. I said there in express terms, that there was an infinite disserence between the miracles of Jesus Christ and those of Monsieur de Paris. I promised never to forget this difference, and I have kept my promise. I remarked in its proper place, that this infinite difference regarded the evidence as well as the greatness of the prodigies; and that the incredulous might ob∣ject, that those which we produce, have not the same lustre with those of our Saviour.

  I have been the more particular on this point, not so much to vindicate the author of the Re••••cil, as to show the sense which the most bigoted partizans of the holy deacon had of the difference between the miracles ascribed to him, and those performed by our Lord. I cannot avoid remark∣ing also another difference, I mean that which appears between the sentiments of this author as expressed by himself, and his sentiments as reported by the essayist. 'Tis indeed, Mr Hume, a judicious observation you have given us; that we ought to

  lend a very academic saith to every report which savours the passion of the reporter; in whatever way it strikes in with his natural inclinations and propensities.

  p. 2••0.
• * 1.65

  p. 198. in the note.
• † 1.66

  Actsv 38.39.
• ‡ 1.67

  Siccle de Louis XIV. chap. 33.
• * 1.68

  Essay 12. Of the academical or sceptical philosophy, part 3.
• † 1.69

  Essay 11. Of a particular providence and future state.
• * 1.70

  p. 205.
• † 1.71

  The author adds,

  wrote in an age, when they were still more barbarous.

  These words I have omited in the revisal, because they appear to me unintelligible. The age in which the Pentateuch was written, is indirectly compared to another age, he says not what: and all we can make of it is, that this people were more barbarous at that time, than at some other time, no∣body knows when.
• * 1.72

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 history of religion. I.
• † 1.73

  Natural history of religion. I.
• * 1.74

  The judicious reader will observe, that there is a great diffe∣rence between the concurrence of nations, in the division of time into weeks, and their concurrence in the other periodical divisi∣ons, into years, months, days. These divisions arise from such natural causes, as are every where obvious; the annual and di∣urnal revolutions of the sun, and the revolution of the moon. The division into weeks, on the contrary, seems perfectly arbi∣trary: consequently its prevailing in distant conutries, among nations which had no communication with one another, afford a strong presumption, that it must have been derived from some tradition (as that of the creation) which hath been older than the dispersion of mankind into different regions. 'Tis easy to conceive, that the practice, in rude and barbarous ages, might remain, thro' habit, when the tradition, on which it was found∣ed, was entirely lost; 'tis easy to conceive, that afterwards, peo∣ple addicted to idolatry, or who, like the Egyptians, had be∣come pro••icients in astronomy, should assign to the different days of the week, the names of their deities, or of the planets.
• * 1.75

  This in particular merits our attention the more, that it cannot, by any explication, be made to agree with the doctrine which obtained among the Pagans, commonly called the Mytho∣logy. Ovid is so sensible of this that, when he mentions a dei∣ty as the efficient cause of the creation, he leaves him, as it were, detached from those of the popular system, which it was his bu∣siness as a poet to deliver, being at a loss what name to give him, or what place in nature to assign him. Quisquis fuit ille deorum. Whichever of the gods it was. He well knew that, in all the catalogue of their divinities, the god who made the world was not to be found, that these divinities themselves were, on the contary, produced out of the chaos, as well as men and beasts. Mr Hume in his Natu∣ral history of religion, IV. remarks this conduct in Ovid, and as∣cribes it to his having lived in a learned age, and having been instructed by philosophers in the principle of a divine formation of the world. For my part, I very much question, whether a∣ny nation was ever yet indebted, for this principle, to the disqui∣sitions of philosophers. Had this opinion never been heard of, till the Augustan age, it might indeed have been suspected, that it was the daughter of philosophy and science, but so far is this from being the case, that some vestiges of it may be traced even in the earliest, and most ignorant times. Thales the Mil••sian, who lived many centuries before Ovid, had, as Cicero, in his first book De natura deorum, informs us, attributed the origin of all things to God. Ana••agoras had also denominated the form∣ing principle, which severed the elements, created the world, and brought order out of confusion, intelligence or mind It is therefore much more probable that these ancients owed this doc∣trine to a tradition handed down from the earliest ages, which even all the absurdities of the theology they had embraced had not been able totally to erase, tho' these absurdities could never be made to coalesce with this doctrine. At the same time I ac∣knowledge, that there is something so noble and so rational in the principle, That the world was produced by an intelligent cause, that sound philosophy will ever be ready to adopt it, when once it is proposed. But that this opinion is not the offspring of philo∣sophy, may be reasonably deduced from this consideration also, that they were not the most enlightened or philosophic nations, amongst whom it was maintained in greatest purity. I speak not of the Hebrews. Even the Parthians, Medes and Persians, whom the Greeks considered as barbarians, were genuine theists, and notwithstanding many superstitious practices which prevail∣ed among them, they held the belief of one eternal God the cre∣ator and the lord of the universe. If this principle is to be deri∣ved from the utmost improvement of the mind in ratiocination and science, which is Mr Hume's hypothesis, the phenomenon just now observed is unaccountable. If, on the contrary, it is to be derived originally from revelation, preserved by tradition, thro' successive genrations, nothing can more casily be accounted for. Traditions are always longest retained, and most purely trans∣mitted, in or near the place where they were first received, and amongst a people who possess a strong attachment to their anci∣ent laws and customs. Migrations into distant countries, mix∣ture of different nations, revolutions in government and maners, yea and ingenuity itself, all contribute to corrupt tradition, and do sometimes wholly efface it. This I take to be the only admis∣sible account, why so rational and so philosophical a principle pre∣vailed most in ages and countries in which reason and philosophy seemed to be but in their infancy. The notion, that the Greeks borrowed their opinions on this subject from the books of Mo∣ses, a notion for which some Jewish writers, some Christian fa∣thers, and even some moderns have warmly contended, appears void of all foundation. These opinions in Greece, as hath been observed, were of a very early date; whereas that there existed such a people as the Jews, seems scarce to have been known there till about the time of the Macedonian conquests. No sooner were they known than they were hated, and their laws and cus∣toms universally despised. Nor is there the shadow of reason to think, that the Greeks knew any thing of the sacred writings till a considerable time afterwards, when that version of them was made into their language which is called He translation of the S••ve••ty.
• * 1.76

  Natural history of religion. XV.
• † 1.77

  Jer. xxiii. 28.
• * 1.78

  Analogy of religion, &c. part 2. chap. 2. sect. 2.
• * 1.79

  P. 185.