exempted from all those similarities which make it questionable like these. The renovation of a

lifeless corpse that had been laid in the tomb, but emerged from it again in the full possession of wonted activity and consciousness, is said to be a miracle--but equal, at least would be the miracle of either a falsehood or an error in him, who throughout the whole of a life devoted to the highest objects of philanthropy, made constant assertion of his having seen and handled and companied with the risen man-who maintained this testimony amid the terrors and the pains of martyrdom-and in the words of such an exclamation as "Lord Jesus receive my spirit," breathed it out as the last and the dying utterance of his faith.

8. In the course of our reading on this controversy, we have met with no work, which contains a full development of our argument, or where the author kept a steady hold of it, in the course of his reasoning. Yet, it is but fair to mention, that it must, in various degrees of dimness or of distinctness, have been present to the minds of several of the writers. The principle has been slightly noticed, but not insisted on-like a germ that did not germinate. It is well, that it has ever come, though but momentarily into their view for this may be held as their recognition of its soundness, although, as if without an adequate sense of its importance and power, they have only bestowed on it a passing notice, instead of expanding it into a distinct and formal refutation. 8. The following are a few instances-Le Bas.

in his review of Penrose, presents us with the following abstract of an argument by the latter against what he terms Hume's "wretched fallacy." "The general improbability of miracles is undoubtedly very great; but this improbability, great as it is, can never accumulate to a certainty that all miracles are without exception false. The general pròbability that human testimony should be faithful and trustworthy may perhaps be slight; (or, at least, it may be allowed to be so for the purposes of this argument)—but this probability is capable, under some circumstances, of being converted into a moral certainty that in a particular instance the testimony is true. To argue from the general improbability of any class of occurrences to the universal certainty of their falsehood is manifestly illegitimate. But there is nothing illogical, in proceeding, even from a considerable probability of their falsehood in ordinary cases, to a positive certainty of their truth in extraordinary ones. We have here a distinction of immense importance. It looks very plausible to say that miracles are highly improbable, while the deceitfulness of human testimony is notorious; and on the strength of this vague and general comparison to reject all accourts of preternatural agency. But the above considerations effectually unmuffle this egregious sophism. They enable us to see that there may be cases in which even the miracle is not improbable, and in which the testimony is absolutely conclusive."

9. Dr. John Cook in his treatise on the Books of the New Testament, a work throughout of strenuous elaboration, has, in the following sentence

made a good beginning towards the refutation of Hume on the ground of experience: "Every man's testimony is to be tried by the peculiar circumstances in which it has been given, and not by the truth or falsehood which other men in different circumstances may have uttered." This should have made him independent of that instinctive propensity which Dr. Campbell ascribes to the human understanding -instead of which, he has recourse to it in the argument, and makes our belief in testimony an ultimate law of thought and distinct from experience. Both Penrose and he had hold of the principle which might have availed them for the vindication of testimony as an experimental evidence—a principle, which the former announces with greater distinctness in the quotation that follows, than in the one that has been already given from him. "Because there have been many false pretensions to miracles this authorizes a summary rejection of all such made in like circumstances, while we retain our confidence in those made in wholly dissimilar circumstances."

10. But nowhere have we met with a more distinct announcement of the true principle on this subject, than in the brief sentence by Dr. Whately taken from his masterly treatise on Logic "It would be absurd to consider merely the average chances for the truth of testimony in the abstract, without inquiring what the testimony is, in the instance before us."

11. The reasoning of Mr. Hume may be cast into the following syllogism. Testimony has aeceived us, but Nature is never known to have done so by the violation of her constancy: But

these violations of Nature's constancy termed miracles are only reported to us by testimony: Therefore these events never known to have happened, as being deponed to by an evidence that has often deceived us, must be rejected as untrue. The fallacy of this syllogism is akin to that which is termed by Logicians the fallacy of composition— the middle term being used in the one premise distributively and in the other collectively. In the above syllogism the middle term or testimony is used collectively in one of the premises and distributively in another. It is true that testimony has deceived us but this ought not to have been charged collectively upon all testimony; and it is also true that miracles, especially the miracles of the gospel, are reported to us by testimony, but if by a sort of testimony which never has deceived us, this at least countervails, if it do not overmatch, the improbability which attaches to the event in question because of its miraculous character. In this section of our argument we may be said to have but neutralized the hostile argument of Mr. Hume. In the following section we shall attempt to establish something more than a counterpoise. We shall attempt to establish a preponderance.

12. After what has been advanced, we regard it as unnecessary to advert to the views of Dr. Price who shares in the general sentiment of the philosophers of his period, in making our faith in testimony distinct from the faith of experience.

SECTION III-On the Power even of a single Testimony to accredit improbable or singular Events.

In

1. We hold ourselves to have abundantly proved, that even a single testimony may be of force, to countervail the improbability which is grounded on the singularity of the event that it records. opposition to the statement, that no experience has furnished another instance of such an event being true, we might be able to affirm that no experience has furnished another instance of such a testimony being false. We can establish in this way, at least an equipoise, between the unlikelihood of a marvellous occurrence being real, and the unlikelihood of its supporting testimony being deceitful. But we require more than an equipoise between the event and its testimony. We require an overpassing force on the part of the latter, ere we reach the length of a positive evidence in behalf of the former. Now we believe that such an overpassing force may often belong to a single testimony—or, more properly perhaps, to the testimony of a single witness. Not that we need to avail ourselves of this consideration, in demonstrating the historic truth of the Christian miracles. The great strength, as we afterwards hope to prové, of the argument for them lies in the combination and multitude of testimonies. Still, it is an interesting inquiry, in how far a separate testimony, or rather a separate witness may suffice for establishing the truth of a