and which are prescribed by the foundest logic. But if these witnesses did not confine their teftimony fimply to these facts; if they pretended to atteft the fecret caufe which wrought this miracle; if they affured me, that it depended on a phyfical predetermination, their teftimony on this point of cofmology would feem to me to lofe much of its weight.

The reason of my scepticism with respect to this circumstance would be, because this predetermination, which the witneffes allege, not being fubmitted to the fenfes, could not be a direct object of their testimony, as I think I have proved Chap. iii. Part xvi. of the Philof. Palingenefis.

These witnesses might however attest, that it was revealed to them by the divine legiflator himself: but miracles would ftill be neceffary to prove that they actually had that revelation, that is, facts out of the ordinary course of nature, and which ought to be fubmitted to the senses (e).

(e) Vide Ch. vi. Parti.

D 2

There

There are therefore in a miracle two things, effentially different, and to be carefully distinguished :-The fact, and the manner of the fact.

The first has a direct relation to the faculties of man; the fecond has relation only to the faculties of those intelligences who are acquainted with the fecret œconomy of the world (f).

If, however, the witneffes attributed the extraordinary facts they atteft to an act of GOD, that private opinion of the witnesses would not difcredit their teftimony in my mind; because it would be most natural for them to attribute to immediate divine intervention, facts, the near and efficient cause of which is not revealed to them. Undoubtedly, however, the first condition of testimony is, that the facts attested be not phyfically impoffible, that is, not contrary to the laws of nature.

Experience difclofes these laws, and by reafoning we deduce thofe theoretic and

(f) Vide Philof. Paling. Parts xii. xiii.

8

prac

tical

tical confequences, the fyftematical collection of which conftitutes human science.

Now, the most conftant experience of all times and all places militates against the phyfical poffibility of the refurrection of a dead man.

Witnesses, however, whom I fuppofe highly worthy of credit, attest that a dead man did actually rife; they are unanimous in their account, and that account is clear and circumftantial.

Thus am I fituated between two teftimonies directly oppofite to each other; and, if I confidered them of equal weight, I fhould remain doubtful, and suspend my judgment.

Were the truth of atheism clearly demonftrated, I apprehend I fhould not fufpend my judgment; nature would then have no legiflator. She would be her own legiflator, and her beft interpreter would be the conftant experience of all times and all places. But if it be proved that nature has a legiflator, the proof admits, that the legiflator can modify its laws (g)..

(g) Vide Ch. iii, iv, and vi. of the first Part.

If these modifications be palpable facts, they may become the direct object of testi

mony.

If this testimony unite in the highest degree all those conditions which reason requires to confirm any teftimony whatever; if, further, it unite even those which reason does not require in ordinary teftimonies; it will appear, I think, morally certain, that the legislator has spoken.

This moral certainty will increase, if I can discover what were the views of the legislator, in thus modifying the laws of nature (b).

(b) Vide Ch. vi. Part i.

CHAP.

CHA P. IV.

CONTINUATION OF OBJECTIONS TO TESTIMONIAL PROOF, WHEN APPLIED TO

MIRACULOUS

FACTS.

ANSWERS.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON PHY

SICAL AND MORAL ORDER.

Y scepticism muft not stop here. The facts, which I name miraculous, are

MY

a violation of phyfical order: imposture is a violation of moral order, efpecially in witneffes who unite in the highest degree all the qualities effential to testimony.

Would it then be lefs probable, that fuch witneffes fhould atteft falfe facts, than that a dead man should have rifen?

On this fubject I find it neceffary to advert to what I have fet forth concerning phyfical order, in Ch. v. and vi. (i) of

the

(i) In those chapters the author has stated his hypothefis refpecting miracles, and supported it by many