with principles which are known to him, that the statement is unquestionably true.

This illustration leads to a principle of the utmost prac tical importance. In judging of the credibility of a statement, we are not to be influenced simply by our actual experience of similar events; for this would limit our reception of new facts to their accordance with those which we already know. We must extend our views much farther than this, and proceed upon the knowledge which we have derived from other sources, of the powers and properties of the agent to which the event is ascribed. It is on this principle that the account of the steam-engine would have appeared probable to Archimedes, while it was rejected by his countrymen as absolutely incredible; because he would have judged, not according to his experience of similar machinery, but according to his knowledge of the powers and properties of steam. In the same manner, when the king of Siam rejected, as an incredible falsehood, the account of the freezing of water, if there had been at his court a philosopher who had attended to the properties of heat, he would have judged in a different manner, though the actual fact of the freezing of water might have been as new to him as it was to the king. He would have recollected that he had seen various solid bodies rendered fluid by the application of heat; and that, on the abstraction of the additional heat, they again became solid. He would thus have argued the possibility, that, by a further abstraction of heat, bodies might become solid which are fluid in the ordinary temperature of the atmosphere. In this manner, the fact, which was rejected by the king, judging from his own experience, might have been received by the philosopher, judging from his knowledge of the pow ers and properties of heat-though he had acquired this knowledge from events apparently far removed from that to which he now applied it.

The principle here referred to is independent altogether of the direct reliance which we have on testimony, in regard to things which are at variance with our experience, when we are satisfied that the testimony has the characters

Important principle. How illustrated by the preceding anecdotes? How should the king of Siam have reasoned

of credibility; but, even on these grounds, we may perceive the fallacy of that application of the doctrine of probability which has been employed by some writers, in opposition to the truths of revealed religion, and to the means by which they were promulgated-particularly the miracles of the sacred writings. Miracles, they contend, are deviations from the established course of nature, and are, consequently, contrary to our uniform experience. It accords with our experience that men should lie, and even that several men might concur in propagating the same lie; and, therefore, it is more probable that the narrators lied, than that the statement respecting miracles is ⚫ true. Mr. Hume even went so far as to maintain, that a miracle is so contrary to what is founded upon firm and unalterable experience, that it cannot be established by any human testimony.

Hume's celebrated argument against the resurrection of Christ, and of course against the Christian religion, stated a little more fully, is this: "Twelve witnesses," he says, though not exactly in these words, “I admit, agree in testifying that a man rose from the dead. I am consequently compelled to believe one of two things, either that twelve men agreed to tell a lie, or that a man rose from the dead. Either of these suppositions is, I confess, very extraordinary, but as one or the other must be true, I must admit the one that is least extraor dinary. Now it seems to me more probable that men should lie, than that one who had been several days dead should return to life again; for it is a very common thing in this world for men to testify falsely; but it is contrary to all experience' that a man should rise from the dead."

To this Christian writers reply, in substance, as follows: "We admit the alternative, viz. that we must believe that twelve men have testified falsely, or that one man rose from the dead; and we also admit that we must believe the least improbable of the two. But we deny that the former is the least improbable. For it is not very impro bable that the Creator should wish to make a communication to man kind; and if so, restoring to life the messenger who brought it, would be a very suitable and a very probable mode of authenticating it. But it is contrary to all experience, and all probability, that twelve men, without motive, should conspire to fabricate and disseminate a lie. In regard to the mode by which the Creator would-authenticate a message to men, we have no experience; and there is certainly no presumption against the one in question. In regard to men's falsifying their word,

Hume's argument, what? argument stated more fully? do Christian writers admit?

Extent to which he carried his reasonings? Mr. Hume's
The alternative he offers? His choice? In reply, what
What do they deny ?

in the cause of virtue, and against their own interests, we have a great dea of experience, and it is all against it."

This brief view of the question will assist the pupil to understand more clearly the bearing of the reasoning which follows.

The fallacy of Mr. Hume's argument may probably be maintained from the principles which have been stated. It is, in fact, the same mode of reasoning which induced the king of Siam to reject the statement of water becoming solid. This was entirely contradicted by his “firm and unalterable experience," and, therefore, could not be received, even upon the evidence of a man whom he had already 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 quired 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 va

Its fallacy, how shown? Hume's reasoning compared with that of the king of Siara Experience, how limited? Necessity of placing confidence in testimony?

riance 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. 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

Our

Extent of confidence universally placed in it. Examples. Supposed reasoning of Highlanders on Hume's principle? Proper views of confidence in testimony. On what three conditions? Corroborating circumstances?

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 incredulity, 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.

The

3. He is much guided by his power of discriminating the credibility of testimony, or of distinguishing 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. vulgar mind is often unable to make the necessary discrimination in this respect, and therefore is apt to fall into one of the extremes of credulity and scepticism. 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

Belief of marvellous accounts? Considerations which influence cultivated minds in receiving testimony? First? Second? Example. Third ?