[ i88^ J 



his argument requires it to be taken in that ftrid confined fenfe j 

 and yet in this fenfe his affertion is plainly falfe. In innumerable 

 inftances we give credit to teftimony concerning fads, whereof, not 

 only we have not been accuftomed, but alfo have never obferved 

 the conformity with the teftimony. Thus, to fay nothing of the- 

 relations of earthquakes and volcanos, the correfpondence of which 

 relations with the fads defcribed could not be known to Mr. 

 Hume from his own experience, as he never obferved either of 

 thofe phaenomena, I would afk him, when had he or any of his- 

 acquaintance feen a king put to death after a trial, by his own fub- 

 jeds ? A fad furely both marvellous and extraordinary, of which 

 there are but two or three inftances in the annals of mankind,, 

 and yet he believed, and, is himfelf the hiftorian of fuch a fad. 



2°. He tells us that with regard to Jucb fads, " the fame 

 " principle of experience which gives us a certain degree of 

 " affurance in the teftimony of witnefles, gives us in this cafe 

 " another degree of afl'urance againft the fad ; and hence a contra- 

 " didion, from which there neceffarily arifes a counterpoife and 

 *' mutual deftrudion of belief and authority." Let him apply this 

 reafoning to the cafes juft mentioned, and he will perceive its il- 

 lufion. — But to examine it more ftridly, let us remark that it fup- 

 pofes, that of one and ihe/ame numerical fad our experience gives 

 us an aftTurance which is contradided by teftimony ; for if only a 

 /imi/ar fad be meant, there can be no contradidion, no more than 



if 



