CHA P. II.

BUT they, with whom we argue, have

undoubtedly a right to elect their own examples. The inftances with which Mr. Hume hath chosen to confront the miracles of the New Teftament, and which, therefore, we are intitled to regard, as the strongest which the hiftory of the world could fupply to the enquiries of a very acute and learned adverfary, are the three following:

1. The cure of a blind and of a lame man at Alexandria, by the Emperor Vefpafian, as related by Tacitus;

2. The restoration of the limb of an attendant in a Spanish church, as told by Cardinal de Retz; and

3. The cures faid to be performed at the VOL. I. B b tomb

tomb of the Abbé Paris, in the early part of the prefent century.

1. The narrative of Tacitus is delivered in these terms: "One of the common people of Alexandria, known to be diseased in his eyes, by the admonition of the god Serapis, whom that fuperftitious nation worship above all other gods, proftrated himself before the emperor, earneftly imploring from him a remedy for his blindness, and entreating, that he would deign to anoint with his fpittle his cheeks and the balls of his eyes. Another, difeafed in his hand, requested; by the admonition of the fame god, that he might be touched by the foot of the emperor. Vespasian at first derided and defpifed their application; afterwards, when they continued to urge their petitions, he, fometimes, appeared to dread the imputation of vanity; at other times, by the earnest fupplication of the patients, and the perfuafion of his flatterers, to be induced to hope for fuccefs. At length he commanded an enquiry to be made by physicians, whether

fuch

fuch a blindness and debility were vincible
by human aid. The report of the physt-
cians contained various points; that in the
one, the power of vision was not deftroyed,
but would return, if the obftacles were re-
moved; that, in the other, the difeafed joints
might be restored, if a healing power were
applied; that it was, perhaps, agreeable to
the gods to do this; that the emperor was
elected by divine affiftance; laftly, that the
credit of the fuccefs would be the emperor's,
the ridicule of the difappointment would
fall upon
the patients. Vefpafian, believing
that every thing was in the power of his
fortune, and that nothing was any longer
incredible, whilft the multitude, which ftood.
by, eagerly expected the event, with a coun-
tenance expreffive of joy executed what he
was defired to do. Immediately the hand
was reftored to its use, and light returned to
the blind man. They, who were prefent,
relate both these cures, even at this time,
when there is nothing to be gained by
lying."

Tac. Hift. lib. iv.

B b 2

Now,

274

Now, though Tacitus wrote this account twenty-feven years after the miracle is faid to have been performed, and wrote at Rome of what paffed at Alexandria, and wrote alfo from report; and although it does not appear that he had examined the ftory, or that he believed it (but rather the contrary), yet I think his teftimony fufficient to prove, that fuch a transaction took place: by which I mean, that the two men in queftion did apply to Vefpafian, that Vefpafian did touch the diseased in the manner related, and that a cure was reported to have followed the operation. But the affair labours under a ftrong and just fufpicion, that the whole of it was a concerted impofture brought about by collufion, between the patients, the physician, and the emperor. This folution is probable, because there was every thing to fuggeft, and every thing to facilitate fuch a fcheme. The miracle was calculated to confer honour upon the emperor, and upon the god Serapis. It was achieved in the midft of the emperor's flatterers and followers; in a city, and amongst a populace,

a populace, beforehand devoted to his interest, and to the worship of the god; where it would have been treason and blafphemy together, to have contradicted the fame of the cure, or even to have queftioned it. And what is very obfervable in the account is, that the report of the physicians is just fuch a report as would have been made of a cafe, in which no external marks of the disease existed, and which, consequently, was capable of being easily counterfeited, viz. that, in the firft of the patients, the organs of vision were not destroyed, that the weakness of the second was in his joints. The strongest circumftance in Tacitus's narration is, that the firft patient was "notus tabe oculorum," remarked or notorious for the dif ease in his eyes. But this was a circumftance which might have found its way into the story in its progrefs from a diftant country, and during an interval of thirty years; or it might be true that the malady of the eyes was notorious, yet that the nature and degree of the disease had never been afcertained a cafe by no means uncommon. Bb3

The