vet that such interruptions should occur but seldom. In fact_, 
if they often occurred_, they would not be miraculous. 
21. Thus far^ as to miracles being* contrary to experience. 
A little consideration is also due to Hnme^s second assertion^ 
namely that it is not contrary to experience that testimony 
should be false. This assertion is much too vague to have the 
significance which Hume would attach to it. The actual ques- 
tion is^ Does experience furnish us with examples of men 
inculcating the highest morality and exhorting to speak 
truth every one with his neighbour, and yet imposing on the 
world a gigantic fraud in recording Christas miracles, especially 
that culminating one of all. His resurrection ; and that, for no 
advantage to themselves, but, on the contrary, to bring on 
themselves imprisonments, scourgings, and death, with no 
hope (in the case supposed) of an improved condition in a life 
beyond the grave ? If testimony borne by such men, and under 
such circumstances, could be shown to have ever been false, 
there might be some ground for the second part of Hume^s 
argument. But it may be safely asserted that such a case has 
never been known. It would, in fact, be a contradiction to 
suppose that such men as Christas Apostles should be guilty 
of a gross deception. The only other supposition by which 
their testimony could be invalidated is, that they were enthu- 
siasts, deceived by the ardour of their own imaginations. This 
also has been well refuted by Paley. Their slowness of heart 
to believe that their Lord was risen until they had exhausted 
every proof of it, shows anything but a proneness to deceive 
themselves. Moreover, the non-production of His dead body 
affords the best proof that His resurrection was an actual fact, 
and not a mere phantom of imagination. In Paley^s words. 
The presence and absence of the dead body are alike incon- 
sistent with the hypothesis of enthusiasm ; for, if present, it 
must have cured their enthusiasm at once ; if absent, fraud, 
not enthusiasm, must have carried it away [Evidences, part 
ii., ch. 8). 
22. It has been frequently observed that Paley ^s own argu- 
ment in behalf of miracles contains a fallacy. And if we 
confine our attention to his formal statement of it, I think this 
must bo admitted. He says, How, in what way can a reve- 
lation be made but by miracles ? In none which we are able 
to conceive. Consequently, in whatever degree it is probable, 
or not very improbable, that a revelation should be communi- 
cated to mankind at all, in the same degree is it probable, or 
not very improbable, that miracles should be wrought 
(Evidences, section 3 of Preparatory Considerations). This is 
true, provided that in estimating the probability that a reve- 
