circumstances, and for different results in different circumstances. The same experience which leads us to count on the sonorousness of wood one sort of matter, and the insonorousness of sand another sort of matter, leads us to count on the truth of one sort of testimony, and the falsehood of another sort of testimony. Dr. Campbell, by making our faith in testimony a distinct principle in our intellectual constitution from our faith in experience, hath mystified his argument, and so far weakened it. In testimony, as in every thing else, there is a diffidence in cases of an observed disjunction between the report and the event, and a confidence in the opposite cases of an observed conjunction— just as there is a diffidence in cases of an observed disjunction between a stroke and a noise, and a confidence in the opposite cases of an observed conjunction. The conjunction may, either in the one department or the other, be so unexcepted, as to advance the confidence into a certainty-a certainty different in kind, as relating to different objects, the moral or the physical-but a certainty equal in degree, and alike based upon the evidence of observation in both. 18. But even should, notwithstanding all that we have said, should Campbell's instinctive faith in testimony be sustained, this will not embarrass or impair our argument. It is not because it would prejudice any refutation of ours, that we desire to set it aside but because we hold ourselves to be independent of its aid. We do not think that the imagination of such an instinct helps; but neither, do we think, that if admitted, it hinders the cause. Although there were a peculiar mental instinct in our constitution, by which we felt and estimated the force of testimony, this does not hinder that, over and above, there may be a superiority of experimental evidence in its favour. This last is what we attempt to demonstrate-and that, too, even in the case of miracles, where Mr. Hume alleges the superiority of the experience against the testimony to be quite overwhelming. It is on this, and without having recourse to any peculiar instinct, that we would rest the strength of our argument. We think that our refutation has at least a greater obviousness to recommend it than that of Dr. Campbell's-and, on the other hand, should his be sustained by any as a valid refutation, this does not stand in the way of ours, but only affords two solutions instead of one for the difficulty in question. Yet, for our own part, we cannot help the impression, of a cause being injured by an obscure argument-even though, otherwise, it should be strongly and abundantly propped, by such arguments as are distinct and obvious to every understanding. And, we do think, that the allegation of a peculiar instinct for testimony, has wrought this very mischief in the controversy which now engages us-it being, in the first place, not very obvious in itself, and, secondly, though admitted as to its existence, furnishing no certain data by which to estimate the argumentative strength which should be assigned to it—so that, an experimental refutation seems still to be called for. 19. Certain it is, that in all arguments, the unnecessary multiplication of first principles ought to be avoided. This has more than once been resorted to for the defence of religion-but not, we fear, without giving to its enemies the impression of a desperate cause. When Hume alleged our want of experience in the making of worlds, and would have built his Atheism on the assertion that the world was a singular effect, this was met by Reid and Stewart with their counter-affirmation, that the argument for design as indicated by the beneficial adaptations which our Universe exhibits was not grounded on experience at all-but that this design could be read immediately by the mind, through a distinct faculty of prompt and peculiar discernment which they were pleased to ascribe to it.* And, in like manner, when the same infidel philosopher alleged our want of experience for miracles, and would have built his Deism on the assertion, that our variable and defective experience for the truth of testimony could never so outweigh our uniform experience against the truth of miracles, as to make it possible that the credit of such extraordinary events should ever be established by the report of our fellow-men-this was met by Dr. Campbell with the assertion of an evidence in testimony apart from experience and independent of experience. It was certainly a signal honour done to the intellectual tactics of Mr. Hume, that for the protection of our cause, two new principles * Perhaps it is the same cause in both instances the rapidity of the mind's most familiar and more especially its inferential processes which has led Reid and Stewart to the imagination of a peculiar instinct being concerned in our reasonings upon design. and Dr. Campbell to the like imagination of a peculiar mental instinct in our reasonings upon testimony. had to be invented, wherewith to complicate still more, the philosophy of our mental constitution. Yet without such device, we think, that in both instances, the mischief of his argument might be neutralized and that without the allegation of any mystic or peculiar tact whatever, both our belief of contrivance in Nature, and our belief of miracles from testimony might be made to rest on an experimental basis. SECTION II. On the Power of the Evidence of Testimony. 1. MR. HUME's affirmation is, that we have never experienced a violation of the laws of Nature, but that we have often experienced the falsehood of testimony-and the argument which he grounds upon this affirmation is, that it is not in the power of testimony to establish the truth of such a violation -for this would be making the weaker experience prevail over the stronger, that which is unstable and uncertain prevail over that which is constant and immutable. To meet this, Dr. Campbell asserts, that our faith in testimony is a distinct principle from our faith in experience—that the two are not of the same species; and, therefore, cannot be compared together, as things which are the same in kind, but different in degree; or, that the one does not stand to the other in the relation of a whole to its part, and so, greater than its partthat, generically diverse, they, in fact, are independ ent and incommensurable-a supposition which, if true, might nullify the argument of Hume, yet mystify the whole subject, by leaving us in the dark, as to the relative value of two elements, now made so utterly disparate, and incapable of being referred to a common standard of measurement. It is already understood that we decline all participation in this principle of Dr. Campbell; and are willing to forego any benefit which may be imagined to have come by it to the controversy. We are willing to join issue on the assumption that our faith in testimony resolves itself into our faith in experience and, whereas, in opposition to this, it has been argued by Dr. Campbell, that experience weakens our faith in testimony, instead of strengthening it we have endeavoured to show, that it only weakens our faith in one sort of testimony, while it strengthens our faith in another. In the first instance, it may look adversely to our cause, that we should thus detach from it a consideration which has long been enlisted upon its side-but the same principle which serves to neutralize the friendly argument is, we think, the most effectual, wherewith to meet and to extinguish the hostile argument in this controversy. That force is not to be deprecated, either in military or intellectual tactics, which overthrows the adversary, even though to make room for it, an impotent auxiliary must be displaced from the field. 2. We think, then, that both the combatants have erred, by ascribing to testimony in the general, what should only have been ascribed to a certain sort of testimony, and which is in no way ascribable |