6

principles of Theism, or the belief of one almighty and wise being, the creator, the preserver, and the ruler of heaven and earth, results from the greatest improvements of the understanding in philosophy and science. To suppose the contrary, says he, is supposing, that while men were ignorant and barbarous, they discovered truth; but fell into error, as soon as they acquired learning and po' liteness *.' This reasoning is just, wherever religion is to be considered, as the result of human reflections. What account then will the author give of this wonderful exception? That the reverse is here the case, it is impossible for him to dissemble. The people he himself calls ignorant and barbarous; yet they are not idolaters or polytheists. At the time when the book, which he examines, was composed, he seems to think, they even exceeded themselves in barbarity; yet the sentiments of these barbarians, on the subject of religion, the sentiments which that very book presents to us, may well put to silence the wisdom of the politest nations on the earth. Need I remind Mr Hume of his express declaration, that if a traveller were transported into any unknown region, and found the inhabitants ignorant and barbarous, he might before-hand declare them idola

6

ters, and there is scarce a POSSIBILITY of his being mistaken?' I know no satisfactory ac

* Natural history of religion, I,

† Ibidem.

Shall we then at last recur to the common doctrine, that the world was produced by an intelligent cause? On this supposition also, though incomparably the most rational, it is evident, that in the creation, formation, or first production of things, call it by what name you please, a power must have been exerted, which, in respect of the present course of nature, may be styled miraculous. I intend

not to dispute about a word, nor to inquire, whether that term can, in strict propriety, be used of any exertions before the establishment of the laws of nature. I use the word in the same latitude in which the author commonly uses it in his reasoning for every event, that is not conformable to that course of nature with which we are acquainted by experience.

Whether, therefore, the world had, or had not, a beginning; whether, on the first supposition, the production of things be ascribed to chance, or to design; whether, on the second, in order to solve the numberless objections that arise, we do, or do not, recur to universal catastrophes; there is no possibility of accounting for the phenomena which at present come under our notice, without having at last recourse to MIRACLES; that is, to events altogether unconformable, or, if you will, contrary to the present course of nature known to us by experience. I cannot conceive an hypothesis, which is not reducible to one or other of those above mentioned. Whoever imagines, that another might be framed, which is not comprehended in any of those,

and which has not as yet been devised by any system-builder; let him make the experiment, and I will venture to prognosticate, that he will still find himself clogged with the same difficulty. The conclusion therefore above deduced, may be justly deemed, till the contrary is shown, to be not only the result of one, but alike of every hypothesis, of which the subject is susceptible.

THUS it has been evinced, as was proposed, that, abstracting from the evidence for particular facts, we have irrefragable evidence that there have been, that there must have been, miracles in former times, or such events, as, when compared with the present constitution of the world, would by Mr Hume be denominated miraculous.

SECTION VII.

Revisal of Mr Hume's Examination of Pentateuch.

ALLOWING to the conclusion deduced in the foregoing section its proper weight, I shall also take into consideration the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses; or rather I shall endeavour impartially

count that can be given of this exception, on the principles of the essayist. Nevertheless, nothing is more easy than to give a satisfactory account of it, on the Christian principles. This account is that which is given by the book itself. It is, that the religious tenets of that nation were not the result of their reasonings, but proceeded from divine revelation. The contrast we discern betwixt the ISRAELITES and the ancient GREEKS and RoMANS, is remarkable. The GREEKS and ROMANS on all the subjects of human erudition, on all the liberal and the useful arts, reasoned like men; on the subject of religion, they prated like children. The ISRAELITES, on the contrary, in all the sciences and arts, were children; but, in their notions of religion, they were men; in the doctrines, for example, of the unity, the eternity, the omnipotence, the omniscience, the omnipresence, the wisdom, and the goodness of God; in their opinions concerning providence, and the creation, preservation and government of the world; opinions so exalted and comprehensive, as, even by the author's acknowledgment, could never enter into the thoughts of barbarians.

6

But to proceed in the revisal: We have here a book, says the essayist, wrote in all probability long after the facts it relates.' That this book was written long after some of the facts it relates, is not indeed denied; that it was written long after all, or even most of those facts, I see no reason

to believe. If Mr Hume meant to signify, by the expression quoted, that this was in all probability the case, why did he not produce the grounds on which the probability is founded? Shall a bold assertion pass for argument? or can it be expected, that any one should consider reasons, which are only in general supposed, but not specified?

He adds, corroborated by no concurring testimony;' as little, say I, invalidated by any contradicting testimony; and both, for this plain reason, because there is no human composition, that can be compared with this, in respect of antiquity. But though this book is not corroborated by the concurrent testimony of any coeval histories, because, if there ever were such histories, they are not now extant; it is not therefore destitute of all collateral evidence. The following examples of this kind of evidence deserve some notice. The division of time into weeks, which has obtained in many countries, for instance among the Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, and northern barbarians; nations whereof some had little or no intercourse with others, and were not even known by name to the Hebrews*: the tradition which in several places

* The judicious reader will observe, that there is a great difference between the concurrence of nations, in the division of time into weeks, and their concurrence in the other periodical divisions, into years, months, and days. These divisions arise from such natural causes, as are every where obvious: the annual and diurnal revolutions of the sun, and the revolution of the moon.