lies under the contrary imputation of atheism and profaneness.' This would say a great deal, if the character of the historian were of any moment in the question. Doth Tacitus pretend that he was himself a witness of the miracle? No. Doth he mention it as a thing which he believes? No. In either case I acknowledge, that the reputation of the relater for candour and penetration, must have added weight to the relation, whether considered as his testimony, or barely as his opinion. But is it fair to plead the veracity of the writer in proof of every popular rumour mentioned by him? His veracity is only concerned to satisfy us, that it was actually reported, as he relates; or that the attempt was made, and the miracle pretended; a point which, I presume, nobody would have disputed, although the authority had been less than that of Tacitus. Indeed the historian does not say directly, whether he believes the miracle or not; but by his manner of telling it, he plainly insinuates, that he thought it ridiculous. In introducing it, he intimates the utility of such reports to the Emperor's cause. By which,' says he, the favour of Heaven, and the appointment of the gods, might be urged in support of his title * When he names the word Serapis, as warning the blind man to recur to Vespasian, he adds, in evident contempt and derision of his godship, Who is adored above all others by the Egyptians, a people addicted to superstition +.' Again he speaks of the Emperor, as induced to hope for success, by the persuasive tongues of flatterers t. A serious believer of the miracle would hardly have used such a style in relating it. But to what purpose did he then relate it? The answer is easy. Nothing could be more characteristic of the Emperor, or could better show the arts he had recourse to, and the hold which flattery had of him; nothing could be more characteristic of the Alexandrians, the people amongst whom the miracle is said to have been wrought.

6

The persons,' says the essayist, from whose testimony he ' related the miracle, were of established character for judgment

Queis coelestis favor, et quaedam in Vespasianum inclinatio numinum ostenderetur.

+ Quem dedita superstitionibus gens ante alios colit.

Vocibus adulantium in spem induci.

G

6

6

and veracity, as we may well suppose; eye-witnesses of the fact, ' and confirming their verdict, after the Flavian family were despoiled of the empire, and could no longer give any reward as 'the price of a lie.' Persons of established character for judgment and veracity! Who told Mr. Hume so? It was not Tacitus. He only denominates them in general*: They who 'were present,' and a crowd of by-standers.' The author, conscious that he advances this without even the shadow of authority has subjoined, in order to palliate the matter, as we may well suppose. An admirable expedient for supplying a weak plea, with those convenient circumstances that can give it strength! When fact fails, which is not seldom the case, we need but apply to supposition, whose help is always near. But if this be allowed to take the place of argument, I see no reason why I may not avail myself of the privilege of supposing, as well as the author. The witnesses then, I will suppose, were mostly an ignorant rabble: But I wrong my cause; I have a better foundation than supposal, having Tacitus himself, and all antiquity on my side, when I add, deeply immersed in superstition, particularly attached to the worship of Serapis, and keenly engaged in support of Vespasian, ALEXANDRIA having been the first city of note that publicly declared for him. Was it then matter of surprise, that a story, which at once soothed the superstition of the populace, and favoured their political schemes, should gain ground among them? Can we justly wonder, that the wiser few, who were not deceived, should connive at, or even contribute to promote a deceit, which was highly useful to the cause wherein themselves were embarked, and at the same time highly grateful to the many? Lastly, can we be surprised that any, who, for seven and twenty years, had, from motives of interest and ambition, and popularity, propagated a falsehood, should not afterwards be willing to expose themselves as liars?

The author finishes the story thus: To which if we add the 'public nature of the facts related, it will appear, that no evidence can well be supposed stronger for so gross and so palpa'ble a falsehood.' As to the nature of the facts, we are told by Tacitus, that when Vespasian consulted the physicians, whether

* Qui interfuere.Quae astabat multitudo.

such maladies were curable by human art, they declared *, that in the one the power of sight was not extinct, but would return, were the obstacles removed; that in the other, the joints had suffered some dislocation, which by a salutary pressure might be redressed.' From this account we are naturally led to conclude, that the disorders were not so conspicuous, but that either they might have been feigned, where they were not; or that cures might have been pretended, where none were performed. I think it is even a further presumption of the truth of this conclusion, that Suetonius, the only other Roman historian who mentions the miracle, (I know not how he hath been overlooked by Mr. Hume) differs from Tacitus, in the account he gives of the lameness. The one represents it as being in the hand, the other as in the legt.

There are other circumstances regarding this story, on which I might make some remarks; but shall forbear, as it is impossible to enter into a minute discussion of particulars, that appear but trivial, when considered severally, without growing tiresome to the bulk of readers. I shall therefore only subjoin these simple questions. First, What emperor or other potentate was flattered in his dignity and pretensions by the miracles of our Lord? What eminent personage found himself interested to support, by his authority and influence, the credit of these miracles? Again, What popular superstition or general and rooted prejudices were they calculated to confirm? These two circumstances, were there no other, make the greatest odds imaginable betwixt the miracles of VESPASIAN and those of JESUS CHRist.

So much for the PAGAN miracles mentioned by the author.

Huic non exesam vim luminis, et redituram, si pellerentur obstantia: illi elapsos in pravum artus, si salubris vis adhibeatur, posse integrari.

+ Manum aeger. TACITUS. Debili crure. SUETONIUS. Mr. Hume, in

the last edition of the Essay, mentions Suetonius, but takes no notice of this difference between his account and that of Tacitus.

SECTION V.

Examination of the POPISH Miracles mentioned by Mr. Hume.

THE author soon descends from ancient to modern times, and leaving Paganism, recurs to Popery, a much more fruitful source of lying wonders.

THE first of this kind he takes notice of*, is a Spanish miracle recorded in the memoirs of Cardinal de Retz. The story, he says, is very memorable, and may well deserve our consideration. When that intriguing politician fled into Spain, to • avoid the persecution of his enemies, he passed through Saragossa, the capital of Arragon: where he was shown, in the • cathedral church, a man who had served twenty years as a door'keeper of the church, and was well known to every body in town, that had ever paid their devotions at that cathedral. He had been for so long a time wanting a leg; but recovered that limb, by the rubbing of holy oil upon the stump; and, when the cardinal examined it, he found it to be a true na¬ tural leg, like the other.' Would not any person imagine, from the last words of the sentence, that the cardinal had ordered the man to put off his shoes and stockings, that, by touch as well as by sight, he might be satisfied there was no artifice used, but that both his legs consisted of genuine flesh and bone? Yet the truth is, his eminency did not think it worth while to examine any one circumstance of this wonderful narration, but contented himself with reporting it precisely as it had been told him. His words literally translated are, In 'that church they showed me a man, whose business it was to light the lamps, of which they have a prodigious number, telling me, that he had been seen seven years at the gate, with one leg only. I saw him there with two t.' Not one word

Page 193, &c.

+ L'on m'y montra un homme, que servoit à allumer les lampes, qui y sont en nombre prodigieux; et l'on me dit, qu'on l'y avoit vu sept ans a la porte de cette eglise, avec une seule jambe. Je l'y vis avec deux. Liv. 4. l'an 1654.

of trial or examination, or even so much as a single question asked on the subject; not a syllable of his finding the leg to be either true or false, natural or artificial, like the other or unlike. I have a better opinion both of the candour and of the good sense of Mr. Hume, than to imagine, he would have designedly misrepresented this story, in order to render it fitter for his purpose. I believe the source of this error has been solely the trusting to his memory in the relation which he gave, and not taking the trouble to consult the passage in the memoirs. This conjecture appears the more probable, as he has made some other alterations, which are no-wise conducive to his design; such as, that the man had been seen in the church twenty years wanting a leg, and that he was a door-keeper; whereas the memoir-writer says only seven years, and that he was a lamplighter *.

This miracle was vouched,' says the author, by all the canons of the church; and the whole company in town were appealed to, for a confirmation of the fact, whom the Cardinal found, by their zealous devotion, to be thorough believers of 'the miracle.' It is true, that the company in town were appealed to, by those ecclesiastics; but it is also true, that de Retz, by his own account, seems not to have asked any man a question on the subject. He acknowledges indeed, that an anniversary festival, instituted in commemoration of the miracle, was celebrated by a vast concourse of people of all ranks.

6

'Here,' continues the essayist, the relater was also contem'porary to the supposed prodigy, of an incredulous and liber⚫tine character, as well as of great genius.' But of what weight, in this affair, is either the genius or the incredulity of the relater, since, by Mr. Hume's confession, he had no faith in the relation? Strange indeed is the use which the essayist makes of this circumstance. What adds mightily,' says he,

Since finishing this tract, I have seen an edition of Mr. Hume's Essays, &c. later than that here referred to. It is printed at London, 1760. I must do the author the justice to observe, that, in this edition, he has corrected the mistake, as to the cardinal's examining the man's leg, of which he only says, The ⚫ cardinal assures us, that he saw him with two legs.' He still calls him a door-keeper, and says, that he had served twenty years in this capacity. In the edition 1767, mentioned in the Preface, he has corrected the latter of these errors, and said seven years, but retains the former.