104 OP MIRACLES, 



Si r on nie les prejliges> fays Rouffeau^ on he pe ufc 

 prouver les miracles ; parceque les uns et les autres font 

 fondes fur la meme autonte. Et ii l'on cornet les preftU 

 ges avec les miracles, on n'a point de regie jure, f teclfe 

 et clalre pour difringiier les uns des autres 2 : ain£ les 

 miracles ne prouvent rien. RoufP-au well knew that 

 we do not ufe merely to demonf>ra\:e the div v origin 

 of a doctrine by miracles, but, on the contrary, to de- 

 monflrate likewife the divinity of miracles by the ex-^ 

 cellency and truth of the doctrine known by other 

 means. But neither did the natural obfervation efcape 

 his perfpicacity, that this is a very fallacious circle. 



Allow the truth and the value of a doctrine to be 

 known by other means, i. e. independently on miracles ; 

 then there is no need of the miracle, £nce all truth 

 proceeds from God. 



The doctrine may be true and falutary, and yet the 

 miracle be falfe. For the truth of the doctrine de- 

 pends on other arguments, and will be known by othe^ 

 arguments. 



SOMEWHAT ON THE UWS OF NATURE, 



JOHN Bemouilli maintains the contingency of th$ 

 laws of motion. Euler and d'Alembert teach, with 

 greater reafon, as it Ihould feem, the neceffity of 

 them. 



It feems to me as if d'Alembert had very properly 

 determined the true point of view in which the queftion 



Is 



