legislator to adapt it to those natural means by which human reason arrives at the conviction or moral certainty of past events, and becomes also convinced of the order and fpecies of thofe events. Thefe natural means are what is expreffed by the word teftimony: But teftimony always fuppofes facts; the language of the fupreme legiflator has then been a language of facts, and of particular facts. But teftimony is confined to rules, which are established by reason, and by which reafon judges; the language of the legislator has then been fubordinate to these rules.

The foundation of the belief of man concerning his future destiny has therefore been reduced thus by the author of man to proofs of facts, to palpable proofs, and fuch as are within reach of the most confined and limited capacity.

Because testimony fuppofes facts, it im plies fenfes which perceive thofe facts, and transmit them to the foul without alteration. The fenfes themselves are neceffarily connected with intellect, which judges of facts,

for

for the fenfes (being wholly material) cannot judge.

I call palpable facts, thofe of which plain common fenfe is able to judge, or concerning which we have a thorough conviction that there is no mistake.

may

Good fenfe, or common fenfe, will be that degree of understanding requifite to judge of fuch facts; but as the most palpable facts be either altered or disguised by imposture, or by interested motives, an avowed probity and difinterestedness must be required in the testimony of those who give an account of those facts.

And fince the number of witnesses or relators increafes the probability of any fact whatever, TESTIMONY requires therefore fuch a number of witneffes as reason judges fufficient.

Finally, the more circumstantial the fact, the better it is known; and when the witneffes agree in the effential circumftances of the fact, but vary in the manner and in the terms only, a fecret concert between them feems less probable. Teftimony requires

circum

circumstantial evidences converging towards each other, but varied however as to the form and expreffions.

pre

Further, if certain facts were attested by various ocular witneffes, which combated their moft ancient, deeply-rooted, and beloved Judices-the more I was convinced they had imbibed these prejudices, the greater would be my confidence in their evidence; because men are naturally apt to believe that which coincides with or favours their prejudices, and, on the contrary, believe with difficulty that which contradicts thofe prejudices.

If after all, these witneffes, to the most ef→ fential conditions required in evidence, united thofe tranfcendent qualities not usually met with in ordinary witneffes; if the most eminent virtues, an universal and active benevo lence, were joined to found fense and irreproachable manners; if these qualities were never difputed, even by their adverfaries; if nature were as fubfervient to their command as to that of their mafter; if, finally, they perfevered in their teftimony with the most heroic conftancy, and fealed it with their blood;

blood; their evidence would then appear to me to have all the force of which humán teftimony is fufceptible.

If therefore the witneffes chofen by the Divine MESSENGER united in themselves fo maný ordinary and extraordinary qualifications, I think it would be acting diametrically oppofite to reason, if I rejected their evidence.

CHAP. III.

OBJECTIONS TO

TESTIMONY,

DRAWN

FROM THE CONTRADICTION OF MI

RACLES TO THE COURSE OF NATURE, OR FROM THE OPPOSITION BETWEEN

EXPERIENCE AND THE

GIVEN TO MIRACULOUS

ANSWERS.

TESTIMONY

FACTS,

HOW

OWEVER pofitive and perfect any human evidence may appear, is it

fufficient to establish the certainty, or even

the probability, of facts contrary to the ordinary course of nature?

Now it is obvious, in the firft place, that what I denominate a miraculous fact, is nevertheless an object of sense; and, in the order of divine wisdom, it must be extremely clear and perceptible: fuch a fact, therefore, being fubmitted to the inquifition of my senses, may confequently be the subject of teftimony.

The senses are surely competent to ascertain that a man is alive, or falls fick; that his disease increases, that he dies, that he is dead, and that his body emits a cadaverous ftench: the fenfes are also sufficient to convince us, that the fame man who was dead, is rifen; that he walks, eats, drinks, &c.

These perceptible, palpable facts, may therefore be as well the object of teftimony, as any other phyfical or historical fact. If the witneffes, therefore, of whom I fpeak, confine their teftimony to these facts, I cannot reject their evidence, unless I reject the rules of teftimony which I have laid down,

and