recognised as a witness of unquestionable veracity, and upon whose single testimony he had received as truth "many extraordinary things." He thought it much more probable that even this man lied, than that such a statement could be true. Strictly speaking, indeed, the objection of Mr. Hume may be considered as little better than a play upon words. For what renders an occurrence miraculous is precisely the fact of its being opposed to uniform experience. To say therefore that miracles are incredible because they are contrary to experience is merely to say that they are incredible because they are miracles.

They who are imposed upon by such a sophism as this do not, in the first place, attend to the fact that the term experience, if so much is to be founded upon it, must be limited to the personal observation of every individual; that is, it can apply, in each particular case, only to the last fifty or sixty years at most, and to events which have happened during that period, at the spot where the individual was present. Whatever he knows of events which took place beyond this spot, or before that period, he knows, not from experience, but entirely from testimony and a great part of our knowledge, of what we call the established course of nature, has been acquired in this manner. In the reception of new knowledge, then, an individual must either receive facts upon testimony, or believe nothing but that for which he has the evidence of his senses. It is unnecessary to state how much the latter supposition is at variance with the daily practice of every man; and how much information we are in the constant habit of receiving upon testimony, even in regard to things which are very much at variance with our personal observation. How many facts do we receive in this manner, with unsuspecting confidence, on the testimony of the historian, in regard to the occurrences of ancient times; and on the testimony of the naturalist and the traveller, respecting the

natural and civil history of foreign countries. How few persons have verified, by their personal observation, the wonders which we receive on the testimony of the astronomer; and, even of the great phenomena of nature on the surface of our globe, how much do we receive upon testimony in regard to things which are widely at variance with our own experience. I need only mention the boiling springs of Iceland, and the phenomena of earthquakes and volcanoes. But, on the principles of Mr. Hume, these could not be believed. On the contrary, if one of our intelligent Highlanders were hearing described to him the devastations of a volcano, he would point to his heath-covered mountain, as the basis of his "firm and unalterable experience," and declare it to be more probable that travellers should lie than that such a statement could be true.

The reception of facts upon the evidence of testimony must therefore be considered as a fundamental principle of our nature, to be acted upon whenever we are satisfied that the testimony possesses certain characters of credibility. These are chiefly referable to three heads: that the individual has had sufficient opportunity of ascertaining the facts; that we have confidence in his power of judging of their accuracy; and that we have no suspicion of his being influenced by passion or prejudice in his testimony, or, in other words, that we believe him to be an honest witness. Our confidence is further strengthened by several witnesses concurring in the same testimony, each of whom has had the same opportunities of ascertaining the facts, and presents the same characters of truth and honesty. On such testimony we are in the constant habit of receiving statements which are much beyond the sphere of our personal observation, and widely at variance with our experience. These are the statements which, for the sake of a name, we may call marvellous. In regard to such, the foundation of incredu

lity, as we have seen, is generally ignorance; and it is interesting to trace the principles by which a man of cultivated mind is influenced in receiving upon testimony statements which are rejected by the vulgar as totally incredible.

1. He is influenced by the recollection that many things at one time appeared to him marvellous which he now knows to be true: and he thence concludes that there may still be in nature many phenomena and many principles with which he is entirely unacquainted. In other words, he has learned from experience not to make his own knowledge his test of probability.

2. He is greatly influenced by perceiving in the statement some element of probability, or any kind of sequence or relation by which the alleged fact may be connected with principles which are known to him. It is in this manner that the freezing of water, which was rejected by the King of Siam as an incredible falsehood, might have appeared credible to a philosopher who had attended to the properties of heat, because he would have perceived in the statement a chain of relations connecting it with facts which he knew to be true.

3. He is much guided by his power of discriminating the credibility of testimony, or of distin guishing that species and that amount of it which he feels to be unworthy of absolute credit from that on which he relies with as implicit confidence as on the uniformity of the course of nature. The vulgar mind is often unable to make the necessary dis crimination in this respect, and therefore is apt to fall into one of the extremes of credulity and skepticism. Mr. Hume, indeed, himself admits that there is a certain amount of testimony on which he would receive a statement widely at variance with his own uniform experience, as in the hypothetical case which he proposes, the account of a total darkness over the whole earth continuing for eight days two

hundred years ago. The evidence which he requires for it is simply the concurrence of testimonies, -namely, that all authors in all languages describe the event; and that travellers bring accounts from all quarters of traditions of the occurrence being still strong and lively among the people. On such evidence he admits that philosophers ought to receive it as certain.

These principles may be considered as the elements of our belief in regard to statements which are new to us; and it is interesting to remark how they balance and compensate each other. Thus, a statement which appears probable, or can be readily referred to known relations, is received upon a lower degree of testimony, as in the illustration respecting Archimedes and the steam-engine. Others, which we find greater difficulty in referring to any known principle, we may receive upon a certain amount of testimony which we feel to be worthy of absolute confidence. But there may be others of so very extraordinary a kind, and so far removed from or even opposed to every known principle, that we may hesitate in receiving them upon any kind of testimony, unless we can discover in relation to them something on which the mind can fix as an elemen of moral probability.

This leads us to a very obvious distinction of extraordinary events,-into those which are only marvellous, and those which are to be considered miraculous. A marvellous event is one which differs in all its elements from any thing that we previously knew, without being opposed to any known principle. But a miraculous event implies much more than this, being directly opposed to what every man knows to be the established and uniform course of nature. It is further required that such an event shall be of so obvious and palpable a kind that every man is qualified to judge of its miraculous character,

or is convinced it could not happen from the operation of any ordinary natural cause.

In receiving a statement respecting such an event we require the highest species of testimony, or that on which we rely with the same confidence as on the uniformity of the course of nature itself. But even with this amount of testimony a doubt may still remain. For we have two amounts of probability which are equally balanced against each other; namely, the probability that such testimony should not deceive us, and the probability that there should be no deviation from the course of nature. The concurring evidence of numerous credible witnesses, indeed, gives a decided preponderance to the testimony; and upon a certain amount of testimony we might receive any statement however improbableas in the case admitted by Mr. Hume of a universal darkness. But, though in such a case we might receive the statement as a fact which we could not dispute, the mind would be left in a state of absolute suspense and uncertainty in regard to any judgment which we could form respecting it. Something more appears to be necessary for fixing the distinct belief of a miraculous interposition; and this is an impression of moral probability. This consists of two parts. (1.) A distinct reference of the event to a power which we feel to be capable of producing it; namely, a direct interposition of the Deity. (2.) The perception of an adequate object, or a conviction of high moral probability that an interposition of Divine power might be exerted in such circum, stances, or for the accomplishment of such an object. Such are the miracles of the sacred writings. As events opposed to the common course of nature, they are, by the supposition, physically improbable in the highest degree. Were they not so, were they in the lowest degree probable according to our con, ceptions of the course of nature, they could not be