1

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 tha 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 element 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 juge 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

Application of these principles. Distinction of extraordinary events; what two kinds? Degree of testimony necessary to establish a miraculous event?

the course of nature herself. 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 improbable-as 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 circumstances, 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 conceptions of the course of nature, they could not be miracles, and consequently could not answer the purpose for which they are intended. But notwithstanding this species of improbability, they carry with them all the elements of absolute credibility; namely, the highest species of testimony, supported by a moral probability which bears directly upon every element of the statement. This may be briefly referred to the following heads :

1. The human mind had wandered far from truth respecting God; and on the great question of his character and will, a future state, and the mode of acceptance in his

What necessary besides? Grounds of moral probability? Classification of the grounds of it, in this case. State of the human race?

sight, the light furnished by reason among the wisest of men was faint and feeble. On points of such importance there was the highest moral probability that the Deity would not leave mankind in this state of darkness, but would communicate to them some distinct knowledge,

2. It is further probable, that if such a communication were made to man, it would be accompanied by prodigies or miraculous events, calculated to show beyond a doubt the immediate agency of God, and thus to establish the divine authority of the record.

3. There is no improbability that the power of the Deity should produce deviations from the usual course of nature capable of answering such a purpose. For what we call the course of nature is nothing more than an order of events which he has established; and there is no improbability that for an adequate end he might produce a deviation from this order.

4. An important branch of the moral probability of the whole statement of the sacred writings arises from the characters of the truths themselves, challenging the assent and approbation of every uncontaminated mind. This part of the subject resolves itself into three parts; namely, the truths relating to the character and perfections of the Deity; the high and refined morality of the gospel; and the adap tation of the whole provisions of Christianity to the actual condition of man as a moral being. The former carry a conviction of their truth to the mind of every candid inquirer; the two latter fix themselves upon the conscience or moral feelings of all classes of men with an impression which is irresistible.

This mode of reasoning is not chargeable with that kind of fallacy which has sometimes been ascribed to it, that it professes first to prove the doctrine by the miracle, and then to try the miracle by the doctrine. The tendency of it is only to deduce from the various elements which really enter into the argument, a kind of compound evidence, the strongest certainly which on such a subject the human mind is capable of receiving. It is composed of the character of the truths—the moral probability of a revelation of clear

Necessity of evidence of a revelation? Power sufficient. Internal evidence? Charge of fallacy Reply.

knowledge on subjects of such infinite importance-and the ́ highest species of testimony for the miraculous evidence by which the revelation was accompanied. There are principles in our nature calculated to perceive the manner in which the different parts of such an argument harmonize with each other; and, upon every principle of the human mind, it is impossible to conceive any thing more highly calculated to challenge the serious attention and absolute conviction of every sound understanding.

This imperfect view of a deeply interesting subject will be sufficient to show the fallacy of the objection which has been urged against the credibility of miracles,-that they are contrary to our unalterable experience of the established course of nature. There might have been some degree of plausibility in the argument, if these events had been alleged to have taken place in ordinary circumstances; but the case is essentially altered, and this kind of improbability is altogether removed, when in the alleged deviation a new agent is introduced entirely capable of producing it. Such, as we have seen, are the miracles of the sacred writings; and the question in regard to their probability is, not whether they are probable according to the usual course of nature, but whether they are probable in the circumstances in which they are alleged to have taken place; namely, in the case of a direct interposition of the Deity for certain great and adequate purposes. In such a case, our estimate of probability must be founded, according to the principles already stated, not upon our experience of similar events, but on the knowledge which we derive from other sources of the power of the agent to whom the event is ascribed. Now the agent to whom miracles are ascribed is the Supreme Being, the Creator of all things, the stupendous monuments of whose omnipotent power are before us, and within us, and around us. What we call the established course of nature is merely an order of events which he has appointed; and the question of probability is, whether it is probable that for certain adequate purposes he should produce a deviation from this order. For such a statement, indeed, we require strong, numerous, credible, and concur

General view of the question? The real question in regard to the probability of miracles ?

ring testimonies; but it comes to be simply a question of evidence; and there is no real improbability that in these circumstances such events should take place.

In this manner, then, there is entirely removed from the statement the improbability which is founded upon the uniformity of the ordinary course of nature; because it is not in the ordinary course of nature that the events are alleged to have taken place, but in circumstances altogether new and peculiar. The subsequent inquiry becomes, therefore, simply a question of evidence; this evidence is derived from testimony; and we are thus led to take a slight view of the grounds on which we estimate the credibility of testimony.

Testimony, we are told, is fallacious, and is liable to deceive us. But so are our senses;-they also may deceive, and perhaps have deceived us, as in the case of ocular spectra; but we do not on that account discredit the evidence of our eyes; we only take means, in certain cases, for correcting their indications by other senses, as by touching the object, or by a comparison with the visual impressions of other men; and, whatever probability there is that the eyes of one man may be deceived in any one instance, the probability is as nothing that both his sight and touch should be deceived at once; or that the senses of ten men should be deceived in the same manner at the same time. It is the same with regard to testimony. It may have deceived us in particular instances; but this applies to one species of testimony only; there is another species which never deceived us. We learn by experience to separate distinctly the one from the other, and fix upon a species of testimony on which we rely with the same confidence as on the uniformity of the course of nature. Thus, if we find a man who in other respects shows every indication of a sound mind, relating an event which happened under his own inspection, and in such circumstances that he could not possibly be deceived; if his statement be such as contributes in no respect to his credit or advantage, but, on the contrary, exposes him to ridicule, contempt, and persecution; if, notwithstanding, he steadily perseveres in it, under

Form which the question assumes when the presumption against the fact is removed1 Evidence of testimony and of the senses compared? Example. Case in which conf dence in testimony must be implicit ?