went. They could not therefore enjoy even that poor solace, that the end will sanctify the means;' a so!ace with which the monk or anchoret silences the remonstrances of his conscience, when, in defence of a religion which he regards as certain, he, by some pitiful juggler-trick, imposes on the credulity of the rabble. On the contrary, the whole scheme of the apostles must have been, and not only must have been, but must have appeared to themselves, a most audacious freedom with their Maker, a villainous imposition on the world, and, I will add, a most foolish and ridiculous project of heaping ruin and disgrace upon themselves, without the prospect of any compensation in the present life, or reversion in the future.

ONCE more, can we account for so extraordinary a phenomenon, by attributing it to that most powerful of all motives, as the author thinks it * 6 an ambition to attain so sublime a 'character, as that of a missionary, a prophet, an ambassador from heaven?'

Not to mention, that such a towering ambition, was but ill adapted to the mean rank, poor education, and habitual circumstances, of such men as the apostles mostly had been; a desire of that kind, whatever wonders it may effectuate, when supported by enthusiasm, and faith, and zeal, must have soon been crushed by the outward, and to human appearance insurmountable difficulties and distresses they had to encounter; when quite unsupported from within by either faith, or hope, or the testimony of a good conscience; rather I should have said, when they themselves were haunted from within by a consciousness of the blackest guilt, impiety, and baseness. Strange indeed, it must be owned without a parallel, that in such a cause, and in such circumstances, not only one, but all, should have the resolution to persevere to the last, in spite of infamy and torture; and that no one, among so many confederates, should be induced to betray the dreadful secret.

THUS it appears, that no address in the FOUNDER of our religion, that no enthusiastic credulity, no pious frauds, no ambitious views, in the FIRST CONVERTS, will account for its * Page 200.

propagation on the plea of miracles, if false; and that consequently there is no presumption arising from human nature against the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Christianity.

SECTION II.

There is no presumption arising from the history of mankind, against the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Christianity.

In the foregoing section, I reasoned only from the knowledge that experience affords us of human nature, and of the motives by which men are influenced in their conduct. I come now to the examination of facts, that I may know whether the history of mankind will invalidate or corroborate my reasonings.

Men in have been ascribed to

THE essayist is confident, that all the evidence resulting hence is on his side. Nay so unquestionable a truth does this appear to him, that he never attempts to prove it: He always presupposes it, as a point universally acknowledged. all ages,' we learn from a passage already quoted, much imposed on, by ridiculous stories of miracles new systems of religion *? Again he asserts, that the violations of truth are more common in the testimony concerning ' religious miracles, than in that concerning any other matter of 'fact. These assertions, however, though used for the same purpose, the attentive reader will observe, are far from conveying the same sense, or being of equal weight in the argument. The difference has been marked in the fourth section of the first part of this tract. The oracular predictions among the ancient Pagans, and the pretended wonders performed by capuchins and friars, by itinerant or stationary teachers among the Roman Catholics, the author will doubtless reckon among religious miracles; but he can with no propriety denominate * Page 204, in the note. + Page 205, in the note.

them miracles ascribed to a new system of religion *. Now it is with those of the class last mentioned, and with those only, that I am concerned; for it is only to them that the miracles wrought in proof of Christianity bear any analogy..

I shall then examine impartially this bold assertion, That men in all ages have been imposed ón by ridiculous stories of 'miracles ascribed to new systems of religion.' For my part, I am fully satisfied, that there is not the shadow of truth in it: and I am utterly at a loss to conceive what could induce an author, so well versed in the annals both of ancient and modern times as Mr. Hume, in such a positive manner to advance it. I believe it will require no elaborate disquisition to evince, that these two, JUDAISM and CHRISTIANITY, are of all that have subsisted, or now subsist in the world, the only religions which claim to have been attended in their first publication with the evidence of miracles. It deserves also to be remarked, that it is more in conformity to common language, and incidental distinctions which have arisen, than to strict propriety, that I call Judaism and Christianity two religions. It is true, the Jewish creed, in the days of our Saviour, having been corrupted by rabbinical traditions, stood in many respects, and at this day stands, in direct opposition to the gospel. But it is not in this acceptation that I use the word Judaism. Such a creed, I am

*Should the author insist, that such miracles are nevertheless meant to establish, if not a new system, at least some new point of religion; that those which are wrought in Spain, for example, are not intended as proofs of the gospel, but as proofs of the efficacy of a particular crucifix or relic; which is always a new point, or at least not universally received: I must beg the reader will consider, what is the meaning of this expression, a new point of religion. It is not a new system, it is not even a new doctrine. We know, that one article of faith in the church of Rome is, that the images and relics of saints ought to be worshipped. We know also, that, in proof of this article, it is one of their principal arguments, that miracles are wrought by means of such relics and images. We know further, that the church never attempted to enumerate her relics and other trumpery, and thus to ascertain the individual objects of the adoration of her votaries. The producing therefore a new relic, image, or crucifix, as an object of worship implies not the smallest deviation from the faith established; at the same time the opinion, that miracles are performed by means of such relic, image, or crucifix, proves in the minds of the people, for the reason assigned, a very strong confirmation of the faith established. All such miracles therefore must be considered, as wrought in support of the received superstition, and accordingly are always favoured by the popular prejudices. See Preface.

sensible, we can no more denominate the doctrine of the Old Testament, than we can denominate the creed of Pope Pius the doctrine of the New. And truly the fate which both institutions, that of Moses, and that of Christ, have met with among men, has been in many respects extremely similar. But when, on the contrary, we consider the religion of the Jews, not as the system of faith and practice, which obtains at present, or has obtained heretofore, among that people; but solely as the religion that is revealed in the law and the prophets, we must acknowledge, that in this institution are contained the rudiments of the gospel. The same great plan carried on by the divine providence, for the recovery and final happiness of mankind, is the subject of both dispensations. They are by In the former we are ac consequence closely connected. quainted with the occasion and rise, in the latter more fully with the progress and completion of this benign scheme. It is for this reason that the scriptures of the Old Testament, which alone contain the authentic religion of the SYNAGOGUE, have ever been acknowledged in the CHURCH, an essential part of the gospel-revelation. The apostles and evangelists, in every part of their writings, presuppose the truth of the Mosaic economy, and often found both their doctrine and arguments upon it. It is therefore, I affirm, only in proof of this one series of revelations, that the aid of miracles has with success been pretended to.

CAN the PAGAN religion, can, I should rather say, any of the numberless religions (for they are totally distinct) known by the common name of Pagan, produce any claim of this kind that will merit our attention? If the author know of any, I wish he had mentioned it; for in all antiquity, as far as my acquaintance with it reaches, I can recollect no such claim. However, that I may not, on the one hand, appear to pass the matter too slightly; or, on the other, lose myself, as Mr. Hume expresses it, in too wide a field; I shall briefly consider, whether the ancient religions of Greece or Rome (which of all the species of Heathenish superstition are on many accounts the most remarkable) can present a claim of this nature. Will it be said, that that monstrous heap of fables we find in ancient bards, relating

E

to the genealogy, production, amours, and achievements of the gods, are the miracles on which Greek and Roman Paganism claims to be founded?

If one should talk in this manner, I must remind him, first, that these are by no means exhibited as EVIDENCES, but as the THEOLOGY itself; the poets always using the same affirmative style concerning what passed in heaven, in hell, and in the ocean, where men could not be spectators, as concerning what passed upon the earth; secondly, that all those mythological tales are confessedly recorded many centuries after they are supposed to have happened; no voucher, no testimony, nothing that can deserve the name of evidence having been produced, or even alleged, in proof of them; thirdly, that the intention of the writers seems to be solely the amusement, not the conviction of their readers; that accordingly no writer scruples to model the mythology to his particular taste, or rather caprice; but considering this as a province subject to the laws of Parnassus, all agree in arrogating here the immemorial privilege of poets, to say and feign, unquestioned, what they please; and, fourthly, that at least several of their narrations are allegorical, and as plainly intended to convey some physical or moral instruction, as any of the apologues of Æsop. But to have said even thus much in refutation of so absurd a plea, will perhaps to many rea ders appear superfluous.

LEAVING therefore the endless absurdities and incoherent fictions of idolaters, I shall inquire, in the next place, whether the MAHOMETAN worship (which in its speculative principles appears more rational) pretends to have been built on the evidence of miracles.

Mahomet, the founder of this profession, openly and frequently, as all the world knows, disclaimed such evidences. He frankly owned, that he had no commission nor power to work miracles, being sent of God to the people only as a preacher. Not indeed but that there are things mentioned in the revelation he pretended to give them, which, if true, would have been miraculous; such are the nocturnal visits of the angel Gabriel, (not unlike those secret interviews, which Numa, the instituter of the Roman rites, affirmed that he had with the goddess