INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. In one point of view, it is certainly much to be deplored that men of distinguished abilities should have employed their talents and learning in an attempt to subvert the foundation of our Christian belief; yet in the wise providence of Him who bringeth good out of evil, the labours of sceptical writers have ultimately conduced, in no trifling degree, to the triumph of the great cause which they were meant to injure. In consequence of the early attacks upon Christianity, many important facts were elicited which in the silent lapse of time it might have been impossible to ascertain with accuracy, and many circumstances which might otherwise have been overlooked, adduced as valuable evidence to prove the authenticity of the New Testament Scriptures. To the continued opposition which the Gospel has experienced we are mainly indebted for the integrity in which this evidence has come down to us; and the same pertinacious hostility has served the important purpose of leading the believer to examine more carefully both the principles and the proofs of revealed truth, that he might be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him. There is, therefore, this consolation to balance the pain with which the pious mind must regard every attempt to destroy its comfortable hope, that the Scriptures have undergone the severest scrutiny, that no effort has been left untried to detect inconsistency or imposture, and that to these efforts, repeatedly and pertinaciously made, we owe many admirable treatises, destined to outlive the temporary excitement which gave them birth, and, collectively, furnishing a complete vindication both of the reasonableness of Christianity and of its truth. His In this golden chain Dr Campbell's "Dissertation on Miracles" constitutes an important link. subject is indeed limited, but it is most important; and his argument has been generally admitted to be conclusive. Let it be remembered, also, that in this instance the champion of religion had to contend with one of the most acute metaphysicians, one of the ablest disputants of modern times, whose opposition was the more formidable that it exhibited little of the flippancy, coarseness, and extravagance which have so often characterized the writings of modern infidels. Unlike the wild dreamer Rousseau, Mr Hume had too cool a head to permit either his feelings or his imagination to run away with his argument, or sacrifice it for declamation. The witty raillery of Voltaire he rejected as unsuitable to his genius, and as unbecoming the gravity of a professed philosopher; and the vulgar profanity of Paine was alike foreign to his character, and repugnant to his habits and education. He reasoned calmly, and if not always candidly, at least plausibly and with an appearance of candour, adopting, and dexterously availing himself of any unlucky concession by the avowed friends of religion, which might seem, when pushed to its legitimate conclusion, to weaken the evidences of revelation, while he himself carefully avoided every thing that could tend to rouse the suspicion, or excite the hostility of his reader. To obtain a decided advantage over such an antagonist certainly redounds to the praise of the author of the "Dissertation;" but, in justice, it must rather be regarded as the triumph of truth over error. Mr Hume grounds his argument against miracles - one of the strong pillars upon which our belief in the Gospel revelation rests on the assumption that experience is our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact; but a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined; and if so, it is an undeniable consequence, that it cannot be surmounted by any proof whatever from testimony. A miracle, therefore, (he concludes,) however attested, can never be rendered credible even in the lowest degree. The author of the "Dissertation" disallows the position laid down and assumed by Mr Hume as an axiom, namely, that the evidence of testimony is derived solely from experience. He maintains that miracles are capable of proof from the evidence of testimony; and proceeds, in conclusion, to shew that the miracles recorded in the Gospel are fully attested, and proved to moral demonstration. This slight sketch of the ground respectively occupied by Mr Hume and his opponent will prepare those unaccustomed to the digressions of controversialists for entering more immediately into the spirit of Dr Campbell's argument, although, in reality, there is very little of either obscurity or confusion in the "Dissertation" itself, H. B. PREFACE. I HERE offer the Public a new and improved edition of my Dissertation on Miracles, first printed in the year 1762. I have made a few amendments, not very material I acknowledge, yet of some use for obviating objections and preventing mistakes. It has been observed by several, that Mr Hume has, since the Dissertation first appeared in print, once and again republished the Essay to which it was intended as an answer, not only without taking the smallest notice that any thing reasonable, or even specious, had been urged in opposition to his doctrine, but without making any alteration of any consequence on what he had advanced. I know but one exception, if it shall be thought of moment enough to be called an exception, from this remark. What, in former editions, had been thus expressed, as quoted in the Dissertation,* Upon the whole it appears, that no testimony for any kind of miracle can ever possibly amount to a probability, much less to a proof," is made, in the octavo edition, published in 1767, Upon the whole it appears, that no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof." By this more moderate declaration, Mr Hume avoids the contradiction there was in the sentence to the concession he had subjoined in a note. But no correction is given to many other sentences, which needed correction not less glaringly than this. For this conduct it is not easy to account, unless on the hypothesis that he had never read the Dissertation, or that he had so low an opinion of it, as not to think it contained any thing which either required an answer, or deserved his notice. What follows will probably satisfy the reader that neither of these suppositions was the fact. That Mr Hume had read this attempt to confute his argument, and did not think contemptuously of it, I have his own authority to affirm; for, soon after its publication, I was honoured with a letter from him, one great purpose of which was to assign his reasons for not intending a reply. What he writes on this subject shows sufficiently, though incidentally, that contempt was not the passion which the perusal of this tract had raised in his mind. As there is nothing in the letter which can lead to an unfavourable reflection, either on the understanding or on the disposition of the writer, (for to me it appears to have an opposite tendency,) and as it assigns his own reasons for not engaging farther in the controversy, I have been induced, in justice both to him and to myself, to publish it. I say, in justice to him; for I am convinced that Mr Hume would not have considered it as redounding to his honour, to have the construction above mentioned put upon his silence. Yet it must be owned, that, to those who have never heard himself on the subject, it is by far the most plausible construction. The letter is word for word as follows: "SIR,It has so seldom happened, that controversies in philosophy, much more in theology, have been carried on without producing a personal quarrel between the parties, that I must regard my present situation as somewhat extraordinary, who have reason to give you thanks for the civil and obliging manner in which you have conducted the dispute against me, on so interesting a subject as that of miracles. Any little symptoms of vehemence, of which I formerly used the freedom to complain, when you favoured me with a sight of the manuscript, are either removed or explained away, or at ned for * Part I. Sect. 1. by civilities, which are far beyond what I have any title to pretend to. It will be natural for you to imagine, that I will fall upon some shift o evade the force of your arguments, and to retain my former opinion in the point controverted between us; but it is impossible for me not to see the ingenuity of your performance, and the great learning which you have displayed against me. I consider myself as very much honoured in being thought worthy of an answer by a person of so much merit; and as I find that the public does you justice, with regard to the ingenuity and good composition of your piece, I hope you will have no reason to repent engaging with an antagonist, whom, perhaps, in strictness, you might have ventured to neglect. I own to you, that I never felt so violent an inclination to defend myself as at present, when I am thus fairly challenged by you; and I think I could find something specious at least, to urge in my own defence: but as I had fixed a resolution, in the beginning of my life, always to leave the public to judge between my adversaries and me, without making any reply, I must adhere inviolably to this resolution, otherwise my silence, on any future occasion, would be construed to be an inability to answer, and would be matter of triumph against me. † "It may perhaps amuse you, to learn the first hint which suggested to me that argument which you have so strenuously attacked. I was walking in the Cloisters of the Jesuits' College of La Fleche, (a town in which I passed two years of my youth,) and was engaged in conversation with a Jesuit of some parts and learning, who was relating to me, and urging some nonsensical miracle performed lately in their convent, when I was tempted to dispute against him; and as my head was full of the topies of my Treatise of Human Nature, which I was at that time composing, this argument immediately occurred to me, and I thought it very much gravelled my companion. But at last he observed to me, that it was impossible for that argument to have any solidity, because it operated equally against the Gospel as the Catholic miracles; which observation I thought proper to admit as a sufficient answer. I believe you will allow, that the freedom at least of this reasoning makes it somewhat extraordinary to have been the produce of a convent of Jesuits; though perhaps you may think that the sophistry of it savours plainly of the place of its birth. I beg my compliments to Mrs Campbell; and am, with great regard, SIR, Your most obedient humble servant, EDINBURGH, June 7, 1762. DAVID HUME." The reader will perceive, from this letter, that Mr Hume had not only read my book since the publication, but had perused the manuscript before. The fact was, I had sent my papers to a very respectable clergyman in Edinburgh, stil living, who was well acquainted with that author, and who has, since that time, eminently distinguished himself in the world by his own writings; + As far as I recollect, Mr Hume, whose curious theories have raised many able opponents, has, except in one instance, uniformly adhered to this resolution. But what no attack on his principles, either religious or philosophical, could effectuate, has been produced by a difference on an historical question, a point which has indeed been long and much controverted; but as to which we may say, with truth, that it would not be easy to conceive how the interests of Individuals or of society could at present be affected by the decision, on which ever sie It were given. I believe Mr Hume's best friends wish, for his own sake, as I do sincerely, (for I respect his talents,) that he had given no handie for this exception. of whose judgment, as I had a high and just esteem, I was desirous to have his opinion of my piece, in respect both of argument and of composition, before I should venture to lay it before the public. This gentleman, în return, after giving his opinion in a candid and friendly manner, added, that as he knew I was myself a little acquainted with Mr Hume, there would be at least no impropriety, if I consented, in his showing him the manuscript. To this I heartily agreed; and did it the more readily, as I thought it very possible that, in some things, I might have mistaken that author's meaning; in which case, he was surely better qualified than any other person to set me right. That, however, had not been the case; for though Mr Hume remarks very freely on my examination of his Essay, he does not, in a single instance, charge me with either misunderstanding or misrepresenting him. In returning the manuscript, Mr Hume accompanied it with a letter to my friend, containing such observations as had occurred to him in the perusal. This letter, with the writer's permission, was transmitted to me. It is to it he alludes in the second sentence of that which he afterwards wrote to me, and which is inserted above. It cannot be denied, that, in the first letter, he appeared not a little hurt, by the freedom of the manner in which his principles and reasoning had been canvassed. To complaints of this kind a few hints are subjoined, as suggesting topics from which a sufficient answer might be drawn to some of my refutations and objections. In regard to a few particular expressions complained of, I have, as he justly observes, either removed or softened them, that I might, as much as possible, avoid the offence without impairing the argument. For the hints he has thrown out, by way of reply, I consider myself as indebted to him. They have suggested objections which had not occurred to me, and which required to be obviated, that the argument might have all the weight and all the illustration of which it is capable. I did accordingly, where it appeared requisite, introJuce, and, in my judgment, refute the suggested answer. Thus I was enabled to anticipate objections and remove difficulties which might have occurred to other readers, and been thought by some very momentous. But as the manuscript had, before then, been put into the hands of the printer at Edinburgh, I could not, at Aberdeen, avail myself of those hints so easily, as by making them the subject of noies which I could soon transmit to the printer, with directions in regard to the passages to which they refer. I was not a little surprised, that I could find nothing in reply to my refutation of his abstract and metaphysical argument on the evidence of testimony, displayed with so much ostentation in the first part of his Essay, the production of which argument, to the public, seems to have been his principal motive for writing on the subject. All his observations of any moment were levelled against the answers which had been given to his more familiar and popular topics, employed in the second part. The letter, which is addressed to Dr Hugh Blair, Edinburgh, is as follows: — "SIR, I have perused the ingenious performance which you was so obliging as to put into my hands, with all the attention possible, though not perhaps with all the seriousness and gravity which you have so frequently recommended to me. But the fault lies not in the piece, which is certainly very acute, but in the subject. I know you will say it lies in neither, but in myself alone. If that be so, I am sorry to say that I believe it is incurable. "I could wish that your friend had not chosen to appear as a controversial writer, but had endeavoured to establish his principles, in general, without any reference to a particular book or person; though I own he does me a great deal of honour in thinking that any thing I have wrote deserves his attention: For, besides many inconveniences which attend that kind of writing, I see it is almost impossible to preserve decency and good manners in it. This author, for instance, says sometimes obliging things of me, much beyond what I can presume to deserve; and I thence conclude, that in general he did not mean to insult me: yet I meet with some other passages more worthy of Warburton and his followers than of so ingenious an author. "But as I am not apt to lose my temper, and would still less incline to do so with a friend of yours, I shall calmly communi cate to you some remarks on the argument, since you seem to desire it. I shall employ very few words, since a hint will suffice to a gentleman of this author's penetration. "Sect. 1. I would desire the author to consider, whether the medium by which we reason concerning human testimony be different from that which leads us to draw any inferences concerning other human actions, that is, our knowledge of human nature from experience? Or, why it is different? I suppose we conclude an honest man will not lie to us, in the same manner as we conclude that he will not cheat us. As to the youthful propensity to believe, which is corrected by experience, it seems obvious, that children adopt, blindfold, all the opinions, principles, sentiments, and passions, of their elders, as well as credit their testimony; nor is this more strange than that a hammer should make an impression on clay. own. "Sect. 2. No man can have any other experience but his The experience of others becomes his only by the credit which he gives to their testimony, which proceeds from his own experience of human nature. Sect. 3. There is no contradiction in saying, that all the testimony which ever was really given for any miracle, or ever will be given, is a subject of derision; and yet forming a fiction or supposition of a testimony for a particular miracle, which might not only merit attention, but amount to a full proof of it, for instance, the absence of the sun during forty-eight hours. But reasonable men would only conclude from this fact, that the machine of the globe was disordered during the time. "Page 28. I find no difficulty to explain my meaning, and yet shall not probably do it in any future edition. The proof against a miracle, as it is founded on invariable experience, is of that species or kind of proof which is full and certain when taken alone, because it implies no doubt, as is the case with all probabilities; but there are degrees of this species, and when a weaker proof is opposed to a stronger, it is overcome. "Page 29. There is very little more delicacy in telling a man he speaks nonsense by implication than in saying so directly. "Sect. 4. Does a man of sense run after every silly tale of witches, or hobgoblins, or fairies, and canvass particularly the evidence? I never knew any one that examined and deliberated about nonsense who did not believe it before the end of his inquiries. "Sect. 5. I wonder the author does not perceive the reason why Mr John Knox and Mr Alexander Henderson did not work as many miracles as their brethren in other churches. Miracle-working was a popish trick, and discarded with the other parts of that religion. Men must have new and opposite ways of establishing new and opposite follies.* The same reason extends to Mahomet. The Greek priests, who were in the neighbourhood of Arabia, and many of them in it, were as great miracle-workers as the Romish; and Mahomet would have been laughed at for so stale and simple a device. To cast out devils, and cure the blind, where every one almost can do as much, is not the way to get any extraordinary ascendant over men. I never read of a miracle in my life that was not meant to establish some new point of religion. There are no miracles wrought in Spain to prove the gospel; but Saint Francis Xavier wrought a thousand well attested ones for that purpose in the Indies. The miracles in Spain, which are also fully and completely attested, are wrought to prove the efficacy of a particular crucifix or relic, which is always a new point, or, at least, not universally received.± * On the observation, that none of the Reformers, either abroad or at home, had ever pretended to the power of working miracles, notwithstanding the enthusiasm with which the Essayist charges them in his History, and notwithstanding the great facility which he affirms there is in this way of imposing upon mankind, to this he replies as above, "I wonder the author does not perceive," &c. My return to this will be found in a note in the Dissertation. The reply to the observation with regard to Mahomet, will be found in the place referred to, partly in the text, and partly in the note at the bottom of the page. In the former edition, I had asserted, that the oracular predictions among the Pagans, and the pretended wonders performed by Capuchins and Friars, by itinerant or stationary teachers among the Roman Catholics, could not be denominated miracles ascribed to a new system of religion. This remark drew from Mr Hume the reply as above, "I never read," &c. To this objection the note on that passage is intended as an answer; whether it be a sufficient one the reader will |