and yet it cannot be denied that there are many instances obvious to common observation, in which vice seemeth to flourish and prosper, and virtue to be exposed to great evils and calamities. What is to be concluded from this? Is it that because the justice of God here showeth itself only in part, and not in its full extent (to use our author's expression), therefore righteousness in God is imperfect in its degree, and that he doth not possess it in the full extent of that perfection, nor will ever exert it any farther than we see him exert it in this present state? This were an unreasonable conclusion, concerning a being of such admirable perfection, whose righteousness as well as wisdom must be supposed to be infinitely superior to ours. It is natural, therefore, to think that this present life is only a part of the divine scheme, which shall be completed in a future state.

But he urgeth, that the great source of our mistakes on this subject is, that "we tacitly consider ourselves as in the place of the Supreme Being, and conclude that he will on every occasion observe the same conduct which we ourselves in his situation would have embraced as reasonable and eligible. Whereas it must evidently appear contrary to all rules of analogy, to reason from the intentions and purposes of men to those of a Being so different and so much superior, so remote and incomprehensible."* But though it were the highest absurdity to pretend to tie down the infinite incomprehensible Being to our scanty model and measures of acting, and to assume he will on every occasion (for so our author is pleased to put the case) observe the same conduct that we should judge eligible; since there may be innumerable things concerning which we are unable to form any proper judgment, for want of having the same comprehensive view of things that he hath; yet on the other hand, there are some cases so manifest, that we may safely pronounce concerning them, as worthy or unworthy of the divine perfections. And as our own natures are the work of God, we may reasonably argue from the traces of excellencies in ourselves to the infinitely superior perfections in the great Author of the universe, still taking care to remove all those limitations and defects with which those qualities are attended in us. This is what Mr. Hume himself elsewhere allows in his Essay on the Origin of our Ideas. "The idea of God," saith he, "as meaning an infinitely intelligent, wise, and good being, arises from reflecting on the operations of our own minds, and augmenting those qualities of goodness and wisdom without bound or limit." See his Philosophical Essays, p. 24, 25. Since therefore we cannot possibly help regarding goodness and benevolence, justice and righteousness, as necessary ingredients in a worthy and excellent character, and as among the noblest excellencies of an intellectual being, we are unavoidably led to conclude that they are to be found in the highest possible degree of eminency in the absolutely perfect Being, the Author and Governor of the world. These are not mere arbitrary

• Philosophical Essays, p. 230.

suppositions, but are evidently founded in nature and reason; and though in many particular instances we, through the narrowness of our views, cannot be proper judges of the grounds and reasons of the divine administration, yet in general we have reason to conclude, that if there be such a thing as goodness and righteousness in God, or any perfection in him correspondent to what is called goodness and righteousness in us, he will order it so that in the final issue of things a remarkable difference shall be made between the righteous and the wicked; that at one time or other, and taking in the whole of existence, virtue, though now for a time it may be greatly afflicted and oppressed, shall meet with its due reward; and vice and wickedness, though now it may seem to prosper and triumph, shall receive its proper punishment. Since therefore, by the observation of all ages, it hath often happened, that in the present course of human affairs, good and excellent persons have been unhappy, and exposed to many evils and sufferings, and bad and vicious men have been in very prosperous circumstances, and have had a large affluence of all worldly enjoyments, even to the ends of their lives, and that, as this gentleman himself elsewhere expresseth it, "such is the confusion and disorder of human affairs, that no perfect economy or regular distribution of happiness or misery is in this life ever to be expected;"* it seems reasonable to conclude, that there shall be a future state of existence, in which these apparent irregularities shall be set right, and there shall be a more perfect distribution of rewards and punishments to men according to their moral conduct. There is nothing in this way of arguing but what is conformable to the soundest principles of reason, and to the natural feelings of the human heart. But though a future state of retributions in general be probable, yet as many doubts might still be apt to rise in our minds concerning it, an express revelation from God, assuring us of it in his name, and more distinctly pointing out the nature and certainty of those retributions, would be of the most signal advantage.

I shall have occasion to resume this subject, when I come to consider what Lord Bolingbroke hath more largely offered in relation to it. At present it is proper to observe that though Mr. Hume seems to allow his epicurean friend's reasoning to be just, yet he owns, that "in fact men do not reason after that manner;" and that "they draw many consequences from the belief of a divine existence, and suppose that the deity will inflict punishments on vice, and bestow rewards on virtue, beyond what appears in the ordinary course of nature. Whether this reasoning of theirs, "adds he, " be just or not, is no matter; its influence on their life and conduct must still be the same. And those who attempt to disabuse them of such prejudices, may, for aught I know, be good reasoners, but I cannot allow them to be good citizens and politicians; since they free men from one restraint upon their passions, and make the infringement of the laws of

Moral and Political Essays, p. 224, 225.

I think

equity and society in one respect more easy and secure.”* it follows from this by his own account, that he did not act a wise or good part, the part of a friend to the public or to mankind, in publishing this Essay, the manifest design of which is to persuade men, that there is no just foundation in reason for expecting a future state of rewards and punishments at all. Nor is the concession he here makes very favourable to what he addeth in the next page, concerning the universal liberty to be allowed by the state to all kinds of philosophy. According to his own way of representing it, Epicurus must have been cast, if he had pleaded his cause before the people; and the principal design of this Essay, which seems to be to show not only the reasonableness, but harmlessness, of that philosophy, is lost; for if the spreading of those principles and reasonings is contrary to the rules of good policy, and the character of good citizens; if they have a tendency to free men from a strong restraint upon their passions, and to make the infringement of the laws of equity and society more easy and secure; then such principles and reasonings, according to his way of representing the matter, ought in good policy to be restrained, as having a bad influence on the community.

There is one passage more in this Essay which may deserve some notice. It is in page 230, where he observes, that "God discovers himself by some faint traces or outlines, beyond which we have no authority to ascribe to him any attribute or perfection. What we imagine to be a superior perfection may really be a defect. Or, were it ever so much a perfection, the ascribing it to the Supreme Being, where it appears not to have been really exerted to the full in his works, savours more of flattery and panegyric, than of just reasoning and sound philosophy." The course of his arguing seems to be this: That it would savour of flattery, not of sound reasoning, to ascribe any attribue or perfection to God, which appears not to have been exerted to the full in his works. And he had observed before, that "it is impossible for us to know any thing of the cause, but what we have antecedently, not inferred, but discovered to the full in the effect." It is plain therefore, that according to him we ought not to ascribe any perfection to God, but what is not merely inferred, but discovered to the full in his works. It is also manifest, that according to him there is no attribute or perfection of the Deity exerted or discovered to the full in his works; for he had said just before, that he discovers himself only by some faint traces_or outlines. The natural conclusion from these premises taken together is plainly this that it would be flattery and presumption. in us to ascribe any attribute or perfection to God at all. And now I leave it to you to judge of the obligations the world is under to this writer. In one part of his Essay he makes an attempt to subvert the proof of the existence of a God, or a supreme intelligent cause of the universe; and here he insinuates that it would be wrong to ascribe any perfection or attribute to him at all. And the main

design of the whole Essay is to show, than no argument can be drawn from any of his perfections, to make it probable that there shall be rewards and punishments in a future state, though he acknowledgeth that it is of great advantage to makind to believe them.

You will not wonder after this, that this gentleman, who has endeavoured to shake the foundations of natural religion, should use his utmost efforts to subvert the evidences of the Christian revelation. What he hath offered this way will be the subject of some future letters.

LETTER XVIII.

An Examination of Mr. Hume's Essay on Miracles-A Summary of the first Part of that Essay, which is designed to show, that Miracles are incapable of being proved by any Testimony or Evidence whatsoever-His main Principle examined, that Experience is our only Guide in reasoning concerning Matters of Fact; and that Miracles being contrary to the established Laws of Nature, there is an uniform Experience against the Existence of any Miracle-It is shown that no Argument can be drawn from Experience, to prove that Miracles are impossible, or that they have not been actually wrought-Miracles not above the Power of God, nor unworthy of his Wisdom-Valuable Ends may be assigned for Miracles-They are capable of being proved by proper Testimony-This applied to the Resurrection of Christ-And it is shown, that the evidence set before us in Scripture is every way sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of it, supposing that Evidence to have been really given as there represented.

Sir,

I Now proceed to consider Mr. Hume's celebrated Essay on Miracles, which is the tenth of his Philosophical Essays, and has been mightily admired and extolled, as a masterly and unanswerable piece. I think no impartial man will say so, that has read the ingenious and judicious answer made to it by the Rev. Mr. Adams, now rector of Shrewsbury. It is entitled, An Essay in answer to Mr. Hume's Essay on Miracles, by William Adams, M. A. That which I have by me is the second edition, with additions, London, 1754. Besides this, I have seen a short but excellent discourse, by the Rev. Dr. Rutherforth, entitled, The Credibility of Miracles defended against the Author of the Philosophical Essays, "in a discourse delivered at the primary visitation of the Right Rev. Thomas Lord Bishop of Ely.-Cambridge, 1751." These in my opinion are sufficient. But since you desire that I would also take a particular notice of Mr. Hume's Essay, I shall obey your commands, and enter on a distinct consideration of this boasted performance.

Mr. Hume introduceth his Essay on Miracles in a very pompous manner, as might be expected from one who sets up in his Philo

sophical Essays, for teaching men better methods of reasoning than any philosopher had done before him. He had taken care at every turn to let his readers know how much they are obliged to him, for throwing new light on the most curious and sublime effects, with regard to which the most celebrated philosophers had been extremely defective in their researches. And now he begins his Essay on Miracles with declaring, that "he flatters himself that he has discovered an argument, which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion; and, consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures; for so long," he presumes, "will the account of miracles and prodigies be found in all profane history."*

This Essay consisteth of two parts. The first, which reacheth from p. 173 to p. 186, is designed to show, that no evidence which can be given, however seemingly full and strong, can be a sufficient ground for believing the truth and existence of miracles; or, in other words, that miracles are, in the nature of things, incapable of being proved by any evidence or testimony whatsoever. The second part is intended to show, that supposing a miracle capable of being proved by full and sufficient evidence or testimony, yet, in fact, there never was a miraculous event in any history established upon such evidence. The first is what he seems principally to rely upon; and, indeed, if this can be proved, it will make any particular inquiry into the testimony produced for miracles needless.

The method he makes use of in the first part of his Essay, to show that no evidence or testimony that can be given is a sufficient ground for a reasonable assent to the truth and existence of miracles, is this: He lays it down as an undoubted principle, that experience is our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact; and at the same time insinuates, that this guide is far from being infallible, and is apt to lead us into errors and mistakes. He observes, that the validity and credibility of human testimony is wholly founded upon experience: That in judging how far a testimony is to be depended upon, we balance the opposite circumstances, which may create any doubt or uncertainty: That the evidence arising from testimony may be destroyed, either by the contrariety and opposition of the testimony, or by the consideration of the nature of the facts themselves: That when the facts partake of the marvellous and extraordinary, there are two opposite experiences with regard to them; and that which is the most credible is to be preferred, though still with a diminution of its credibility, in proportion to the force of the other which is opposed to it: That this holdeth still more strongly in the case of miracles, which are supposed to be contrary to the laws of nature; for experience being our only guide, and an uniform experience having established those laws, there must be an uniform experience against the existence of any miracle; and an uniform experience amounts to a full and entire proof. To suppose, therefore, any testimony to be a proof of a

Philosophical Essays, p. 174.