rounding multitude; Jefus bid him walk, and he did fo. A man with a withered hand is in the fynagogue; Jefus bid him stretch forth his hand, in the prefence of the affembly, and it "restored whole like the other." There was nothing tentative in thefe cures; nothing that can be explained by the power of accident.

was

We may obferve alfo that many of the cures which Christ wrought, fuch as that of a perfon blind from his birth, alfo ma-ny miracles befide cures, as raifing the dead, walking upon the fea, feeding a great multitude with a few loaves and fishes, are of a nature which does not in any wife admit of the fuppofition of a fortunate experiment.

III. We may difmifs from the question all accounts in which, allowing the phenomenon to be real, the fact to be true, it still remains doubtful whether a miracle were wrought. This is the cafe with the ancient hiftory of what is called the thundering legion, of the extraordinary circumftances which obftructed the rebuilding of the temple at Jerufalem by Julian, the circling of the flames and fragrant fmell at the martyrdom of Polycarp, the fudden flower that extinguished the fire into which the fcriptures were thrown in the Diocletian perfecution; Conftantine's dream, his inferibing in confequence of it the cross upon his ftandard and the fhields of his foldiers; his victory, and the efcape of the standard bearer; perhaps also the imagined appearance of the crofs in the heavens, though this last circumftance is very deficient in hiftorical evidence. It is alfo the. cafe with the modern annual exhibition of liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius at Naples. It is a doubt likewife, which oughtto be excluded by very fpecial circumftances, from these narratives which relate to the fupernatural cure of hypochondriacal and nervous complaints, and of all diseases which are much affected. by the imagination. The miracles of the fecond and third century are, ufually, healing the fick, and cafting out evil fpirits, miracles in which there is room for fome error and deception. We hear nothing of caufing the blind to fee, the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, the lepers to be cleanfed. There are also inftances in Chriftian writers of reputed miracles, which were natural operations though not known to be such at the time, as that of articulate fpeech after the lofs of a great part of the

tongue..

2 Mark ii. 3.

b Mat. xii. 10,

Jortin's Rem, vol. II. p. 51,

IV. To the fame head of objection nearly, may alfo be referred accounts, in which the variation of a small circumstance may have transformed fome extraordinary appearance, or fome critical coincidence of events, into a miracle; itories, in a word, which may be refolved into exaggeration. The miracles of the gofpel can by no poffibility be explained away in this manner. Total fiction will account for any thing; but no ftretch of exaggeration that has any parallel in other hitories, no force of fancy upon real circumstances, could produce the narrative which we now have. The feeding of the five thousand with a few loaves and fifhes furpaffes all bounds of exaggeration. The rai fing of Lazarus, of the widow's fon at Nain, as well as many of the cures which Chrift wrought, come not within the compass of mifreprefentation. I mean, that it is impossible to affign any pofition of circumstances, however peculiar, any accidental ef fects, however extraordinary, any natural fingularity, which could fupply an origin or foundation to thefe accounts.

Having thus enumerated feveral exceptions, which may just、 ly be taken to relations of miracles, it is neceffary, when we read the fcriptures to bear in our mind this general remark, that although there be miracles recorded in the New Teftament, which fall within fome or other of the exceptions here affigned, yet that they are united with others, to which none of the fame exceptions extend, and that their credibility ftands upon this union. Thus the vifions and revelations, which St. Paul afferts, to have been imparted to him, may not, in their separate evidence, be distinguishable from the vifions and revelations which many others have alleged. But here is the difference. St. Paul's pretenfions were attefted by external miracles wrought by himself, and by miracles wrought in the cause to which these vifions relate; or, to fpeak more properly, the fame hiftorical authority which informs us of one, informs us of the other. This is not ordinarily true of the vifions of enthufiafts, or even of the accounts in which they are contained. Again, fome of Christ's own miracles were momentary; as the transfiguration, the appearance and voice from heaven at Chrift's baptifin, a voice fromthe clouds upon one occafion afterwards, (John xii. 30) and fome others. It is. not denied, that the diflinction which we have propofed concerning miracles of this fpecies, applies in diminution of the force of the evidence, as much to thefe inftances, as to others. But this is the cafe, not with all the miracles afcribed to Chrift,

with the greatest part, nor with many. Whatever force

therefore there may be in the objection, we have numerous miracles which are free from it; and even thofe to which it is applicable, are little affected by it in their credit, because there are few, who, admitting the reit, will reject them. If there be miracles of the New Teftament, which come within any of the other heads into which we have diftributed the objections, the fame remark must be repeated. And this is one way, in which the unexampled number and variety of the miracles afçribed to Chrift, ftrengthens the credibility of Christianity. For it precludes any folution, or conjecture about a solution, which imagination, or even which experience might fuggeft concerning fome particular miracles, if confidered independently of others. The miracles of Christ were of various kinds, a and performed in great varieties of fituation, form and manner; at Jerufalem, the metropolis of the Jewish nation and religion, in different parts of Judea and Galilee; in cities, in villages; in fynagogues, in private houses; in the street, in highways; with preparation, as in the cafe of Lazarus, by accident, as in the cafe of the widow's fon at Nain; when attended by multitudes, and when alone with the patient; in the midft of his difciples, and in the prefence of his enemies; with the common people around him, and before fcribes and pharifees. and rulers of the fynagogues.

I apprehend that, when we remove from the comparison the cafes which are fairly difpofed of by the obfervations that have been ftated, many cafes will not remain. To thofe which do remain, we apply this final diftinction; "that there is not fatisfactory evidence, that perfons pretending to be original witneffes of the miracles, paffed their lives in labours, dangers and fufferings, voluntarily undertaken and undergone in atteftation of the accounts which they delivered, and properly in confequence of their belief of the truth of thofe accounts."

a Not only healing every fpecies of disease, but turning water into wine (John ii.;) feading multitudes with a few loaves and fifties. (Mat xiv. 14. Mark vi. 35. Luke iz. 12. John iv. 5. ;) walking, on the fea (Mat. xiv, 23 ) calming, a ftorm (Mat, viii. 26. Luke viii. 23.;) a celeftial voice at his baptifm, and miraculous appearance (Mat. iji. 17. afterwards John xii. 28.;) his transfiguration (Mat. xvii, 1—8, Mark ix. 2. Luke ix. 28. Ep. Peter i. 16, 17.;) raising the dead in three diftinct inftances (Mat, 4, 18. Mark v. 22. Luke viii. 41. Luke vij. 14. John xi.)

CHAP. II.

BUT they, with whom we argue, have undoubtedly a right

to elect their own examples. The inftances, with which Mr. Hume hath chofen to confront the miracles of the New Tef tament, and which, therefore, we are entitled to regard, as the strongest which the hiftory of the world could fupply to the inquiries of a very acute and learned adversary, are the three following:

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

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

3. The cures faid to be performed at the tomb of the Abbé. Paris, in the early part of the prefent century.

1. The narrative of Tacitus is delivered in thefe terms :: "One of the common people of Alexandria, known to be dif eafed in his eyes, by the admonition of the god Serapis, whom that fuperftitious nation worship above all other gods, proftrated: himself before the emperor, earnestly 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 em peror. Vefpafian 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 earneft fupplication of the patients, and the perfuafion of his flatterers, to be induced to hope. for fuccefs. At length he commanded an inquiry to be made by phyficians, whether fuch blindnefs and debility were vincible by human aid. The report of the phyficians contained various points; that in the one, the power of vifion was not deftroyed, but would return, if the obftacles were removed; 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 ridi cule of the difappointment would fall upon the patients. Vefpa fran, believing that every thing was in the power of his fortune,, and that nothing was any longer incredible, whilft the multitude:

which stood by, eagerly expected the event, with a countenance expreffive of joy executed what he was he defired to do. Immediately the hand was reftored to its ufe, and light returned to the blind man. They who were prefent, relate both thefe cures, even at this time, when there is nothing to be gained by lying."a.

Now, although 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 story, or that he believed it (but rather the contrary) yet I think his teftimony fufficient to prove, that fuch a tranfaction took place; by which I mean, that the two meh in queftion did apply to Vefpafian, that Vefpafian did touch the difeafed in the manner related, and that a cure was reported to have followed the operation. But the affair labours under a strong and just fufpicion, that the whole of it was a concerted imposture brought about by conclufion, between the patients, the phyfician, 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 midst of the emperor's flatterers and followers; in a city, and amongst a populace beforehand devoted to his intereft, and to the worship of the god; where it would have been treafon 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 phyficians is just fuch a report as would have been made of a case, in which no external marks of the difeafe exifted, and which, confequently, was capable of being eafily counterfeited, viz. that, in the firft of the patients the organs of vifion were not deftroyed, that the weakness of the fecond was in his joints. The ftrongest circumftance in Tacitus's narration is that the first patient was "notus tabe oculorum," remarked or notorious for the difeafe in his eyes. But this was a circumstance 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 difeafe had never been ascertained. A cafe by no means ancommon. The

a Tac. Ant. p. 89.