[ ^85 ] 



the fecond. For firft, the evidence of teftimony cannot be faid to 

 be founded on our perfonal paft experience of the conftant, or 

 variable, conjundion of reports and their objedts ; for we juftly give 

 credit to numerous reports, of whofe conjundion with their objedls 

 we never had, nor could have, any perfonal experience, nay not 

 even of any thing analogous to them. Did not Mr. Hume give 

 credit to the reports of volcanos ? Did he ever fee them, or any- 

 thing like them? Did he not believe the decapitation of Charles 

 the firft, as we do that alfo of Lewis the fixteenth, though we 

 neither faw it, nor any thing analogous to it ? Did he ever fee a 

 murder of any kind committed ? Yet did he not believe there- 

 ports of fuch crimes? But it were endlefs and fuperfluous to en- 

 large on this head. In this fenfe of the word experience his argu- 

 ment is evidently falfe. I therefore pafs to the fecond fenfe. In the 

 fecond fenfe the argument would run thus : the evidence derived 

 from tejiimony is founded merely on the experience of other me?i. This 

 fenfe is too glaringly abfurd to need being infifted upon ; for how 

 can I know the experience of others, but by teftimony ? And, this 

 being granted, the argument would amount to this: the evidence 

 derived from human teftimony is founded on human tejiimony. 



Neither can it be faid that the word experience is taken in a 

 compound fenfe, denoting partly our own perfonal experience, 

 and partly that of others ; for though this be true in a certain 

 fenfe, it is not fo in that which Mr. Hume's argument requires, 



Vol. VIII. A a namely, 



