[ 192 ] 



" Mufcovy during the winter, they could not reafonably be 

 " pofitive what could be the confequence." If fo, the fad fhould 

 appear to them merely doubtful, and not contrary to analogy; 

 confequently, even a flight teftimony fhould fuffice to eftablifli 

 it. 



Ibid. " But in order to increafe the probability againil the 



" teftimony of witnelles, let us fuppofe the fadl which they 



" affirm, inftead of being only marvellous, is really miraculous; 



" and fuppofe their teftimony, confidered apart, amounts to an 



" eaclre proof, in that cafe there is proof againft proof, of 



" which the ftrongeft muft prevail, but with a diminution of 



'• its force in proportion to that of its antagonift." 



Here is a glaring inaccuracy; for hy full proof Mr. Hume 

 underftands fiich a proof as produces the laft degree of aflfurance, 

 and by an entire proef he evidently means a proof equally flrong; 

 how then can he fuppofe, in any cafe, one flronger than the 

 other, and that the -ftrongeft fhould prevail .? 



Ibid. " A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature ; and as a 

 " firm and unaltered experience has eftabliflied thefe laws, the 

 " proof againft a miracle from the very nature of the fad is as 

 " entire as any argument from experience can poffibly be 

 " imagined — nor can fuch a proof be deftroyed, or the mi- 



" racle 



i 



I 



