[ '93 } 



*' raclc rendered credible, but by an oppofite proof which is 

 " fuperior." 



Here it is fuppofed very properly by our author, that the 

 laws of phyfical nature may be contradidlorily oppofed by thofe 

 of moral nature ; for the proof by teflimony of the violation of 

 the former cannot be fuppofed full and entire, much lefs a 

 fuperior proof, unlefs the falfehood of the teflimony fhould 

 imply a violation of the laws by which rational agents are go- 

 verned. Now as it is metaphyfically evident, that two contra- 

 dictory propofitions cannot both be true, but one muft be true, 

 and the other falfe, fo one and the fame fa(5l cannot be fuppofed 

 to have exifted in conformity to the laws of moral nature, 

 and not to have exifted in conformity with the laws of phyfical 

 nature. It is plain therefore that one or other of thefe laws muft 

 lave been infringed, fo that a miracle of fome kind muft 

 lave happened : if we do not admit that of a phyfical nature, 

 ire muft admit that of a moral nature, and vice verfa. We are 

 therefore ferioufly to confider, which of thefe laws muft, con- 

 fiftently with right reafon, the occafion, and circumftances, be 

 deemed to have been infringed ; and not content ourfelves with 

 a mei'e fufpenfion of judgment, unlefs the matter no way 

 concerns us. Mr. Hume feems indeed to have decided this 

 point ; for he tells us, that the laws of phyfical nature are firm 

 and unalterable : how he has learned their inalterability I cannot 

 tell. That they have not been altered, except in a few inftances 



Vol. VIII. B b and 



