which ought to weigh with a rational Indian. I think, on the contrary, in the case supposed by me, of one commissioned by Heaven, there is at least no presumption against the exertion of such a miraculous power. There is rather. a presumption in its favour.

Does the author then say that no testimony could give the king of Siam sufficient evidence of the effects of cold in water? No. By implication he says the contrary: "It requir"ed very strong testimony." Will he say, that those most astonishing effects of electricity lately discovered, so entirely unanalagous

every thing before experienced, will he say, that such facts no reasonable man could have sufficient evidence from testimony to believe? No. We may presume, he will not, from his decision in the former case; and if he should, the common sense of mankind would reclaim against his extravagance. Yet it is obvious to every considerate reader, that his argument concludes equally against those truly marvellous, as against miraculous events; both being alike unconformable, or alike contrary to former experience.*

* I cannot forbear to observe, that many of the principal terms employed in the essay, are used in a manner extremely vague and uuphilosophical. I have remarked

THUS I think I have shewn, that the author is chargeable with some fallacies, in his way of managing the argument; that he all along avails himself of an ambiguity in the word experience that his reasoning in

;

the confusion I find in the application of the words, experience, contrariety, conformity. I might remark the same thing of the word, miracle. "A miracle," it is said, p. 182, in the note, " may be accurately defined, "A TRANSGRESSION of a law of nature, by a particular "volition of the Deity, or by the interposal of some in"visible agent." The word transgression invariably denotes a criminal opposition to authority. The author' accuracy in representing God as a transgressor, I have not indeed the perspicacity to decern. Does he intend, by throwing something monstrous into the definition, to infuse into the reader a prejudice against the thing defined? But supposing that, through inadvertency, he had used the term transgression, instead of suspension, which would have been both intelligible and proper; one would at least expect that the word miracle in the essay, always expressed the sense of the definition. But this it evidently does not. Thus in the instance of the miracle supposed (p. 203 in t'e note), he calls it, in the beginning of the paragraph, "A violation of the usual "course of nature;" but in the end, after telling us that such a miracle, on the evidence supposed,

t

❝ our

present philosophers ought to receive for certain,” he subjoins (how consistently, let the reader judge) "and ought to search for the causes, whence it might

cludes a petitio principii in the bosom of it;

ན་ ་

and that, in supporting his argument, he must have recourse to distinctions, where, even himself being judge, there is no differ

ence.

"be derived." Thus it is insinuated, that though a fact apparently miraculous, and perfectly extraordinary, might be admitted by a philosopher, still the reality of the miracle must be denied. For if the interposal of the Deity be the proper solution of the phenomenon, why should we recur to natural causes? Hence a careless reader is insensibly led to think, that there is some special incredibility in such an interposal, distinct from its uncommonness. Yet the author's great argument is built on this single circumstance, and places such an interposition just on the same footing with every event that is equally uncommon. At one time, he uses the word miracle to denote bare improbability, as will appear in the sixth section: at another, absurd and miraculous are with him synonymous terms; so are also the miraculous nature of an event, and its absolute impossibility. Is this the style and manner of a reasoner?

SECT. III.

Mr. Hume bimfelf gives up his favourite argument.

"MR. HUME himself," methinks I hear my reader repeating with astonishment, "gives

up his favourite argument! To prove this "point is indeed a very bold attempt." Yet that this attempt is not altogether so ardu. ous as at first hearing, he will possibly ima gine, I hope, if favoured a while with his attention, fully to convince him. If to ac knowledge, after all, that there may be mi racles which admit of proof from human testimony; if to acknowledge, that such mi. racles ought to be received, not as probable only, but as absolutely certain; or, in other words, that the proof from human testimony may be such, as that all the contrary uniform experience, should not only be overbalanced, but, to use the author's expression, should be annihilated; if such acknowledgments as these, are subversive of his own principles; if by making them, he abandons his darling argument; this strange part the essayist evidently acts.

66

"I own," these are his words, "there

may possibly be miracles, or violations of

"the usual course of nature, of such a kind 66 as to admit a proof from human testi"mony, though perhaps" (in this he is modest enough, he avers nothing; perhaps) “ it "will be impossible to find any such in all the "records of history." To this declaration he subjoins the following supposition: "Sup

pose all authors, in all languages, agree, "that from the 1st of January 1600, there " was a total darkness over the whole earth "for eight days; suppose that the tradition "of this extraordinary event is still strong "and lively among the people; that all tra"vellers, who return from foreign countries,

bring us accounts of the same tradition, "without the least variation or contradic❝tion; it is evident, that our present philo"sophers, instead of doubting of that fact,

ought to receive it for certain, and ought "to search for the causes whence it might be "derived."*

Could one imagine, that the person who had made the above acknowledgment, a person too who is justly allowed by all who are acquainted with his writings, to possess uncommon penetration and philosophical abilities, that this were the same individual who

* P. 203, in the note..