[ i84 ] 



•' our obfervation of the veracity of human teftimony, and of the 

 " ufual conformity of fa6tsto the reports of witneffes, which, like 

 •' all other objeds, have no difcoverable connexion ; nor can any 

 " inference be drawn from one to the other, but fuch as is 

 " founded merely on experience of their conftant and regular 

 " conjundlion." This Dr. Campbell and others deny, and I be- 

 lieve juftly; for credit is originally given to teftimony, and even to 

 experience itfelf, from inftindt, and in mofb cafes by perfons who 

 never refle£led on the motives mentioned by our author. Expe- 

 rience barely teaches us to reftrift the confidence we are by nature 

 prompted to repofe in teftimony indifcriminately, and confine it to 

 teftimony duly circumftanced, as Dr. Campbell has alfo well ob- 

 ferved. But though I admit this principle, I fhall not avail my- 

 felf of it in the fequel of this controverfy. 



Ibid. " As the evidence derived from human teilimony is 

 "• founded on paft experience, fo it varies with that experience, 

 " and is regarded as a. proof, or a probability, according as the con- 

 " jundion between any particular kind of report and any kind of 

 " objeds has been found to be conftant, or variable." 



This argument is a palpable fophifm, founded on the double 

 meaning of the term experience ; it denotes both perfonal expe- 

 rience, and the experience of others ; let it be confined to either 

 fenfe fingly, and it will be found falfe in the firfl, and abfurd in 

 -:! the 



