GROUNDS OF CERTAINTY.

27

skeptic never lived who would have doubted it. This kind of evidence is capable of every degree of probability, from the slightest shade of it upward. It often requires that a large number of circumstances should be taken into the account, and, in many cases, does not amount to positive proof. In many others, however, it does; and the circumstance on which I wish to fix attention is, that it may be the ground of a belief as fixed and certain as any other.

These, then, are the grounds of certainty, and each has its peculiar province. Of these, each of the first three-consciousness, reason, and the senses - is entirely competent within its own sphere, and, indeed, scarcely admits of collateral support. Not so the last three. The evidence of memory, of testimony, and of reasoning, may mutually assist and confirm each other. It is upon the last two, the evidence of testimony and of reasoning, that we rely for the support of what are called the external proofs of Christianity; and if one of these is capable of producing certainty, much more, if certainty admitted of degrees, would they both when conspiring together.

A habit of doubt

credulity and skepticism equally weak. — I have dwelt on this subject because it seems to me that many persons indulge themselves in a sickly and effeminate habit of doubt on all subjects without the pale of mathematics and physics, and more especially on the subject of religion. So much has been said, there are so many opinions and so much doubt respecting different points of the religion itself, that this feeling of doubt has been transferred to the evidence by which the religion is sustained. I wish, therefore, to have it distinctly felt that the kind of evidence by which Christianity is sustained is capable of producing certainty, and I claim that the evidences are such that, when fully and fairly examined, they will

produce it. They amount to what is meant by a moral demonstration. There are many subjects on which, from want of evidence, or because they are beyond the reach of our faculties, it is wise, and the mark of a strong mind, to doubt; and there are also subjects on which it is equally the mark of a weak mind to doubt, and of a strong one to give a full assent. The day, I trust, has gone by when a habit of doubt and of skepticism is to be regarded as a mark of superior intellect.

Possible conflict of reasoning and testimony — the argument of Hume. - But, though testimony and reasoning may produce the certainty of mathematical demonstration in some circumstances, yet is it not possible that one of these sources of evidence may so come in conflict with the other as to leave the mind in entire suspense? Is it not possible that an amount of testimony which, when we look at it by itself, seems perfectly conclusive, may yet be opposed by an argument which, when taken by itself, seems perfectly conclusive, and thus the mind be left in a state of hopeless perplexity? This may be conceived; and, putting the testimony for Christianity in the most favorable light, it is precisely the condition in which it is claimed, by Hume and his followers, that the mind of a reasonable person must be thrown, by his argument on miracles. Shall I, then, go on to state and answer that argument? I am not unwilling to do so; because it will, I presume, be expected; and because it is still the custom of those who defend Christianity to do so, just as it was the custom of British ships to fire a gun on passing the port of Copenhagen, long after its power had been prostrated, and its influence had ceased to be felt.

According to Hume, "Experience is our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact." Our belief of any fact from the report of eye witnesses is derived

HUME'S ARGUMENT.

29

from no other principle than experience; that is, our observation of the veracity of human testimony. Now, if the fact attested partakes of the marvelous, if it is such as has seldom fallen under our observation, here is a contest of two opposite experiences, of which the one destroys the other as far as its force goes, and the superior can only operate on the mind by the force which remains. "But," says Hume, "in order to increase the probability against the testimony of witnesses, let us suppose that the fact which they affirm, instead of being only marvelous, is really miraculous; and suppose, also, that the testimony, considered apart and in itself, amounts to an entire proof; in that case there is proof against proof, of which the strongest must prevail, but still with a diminution of its force in proportion to that of its antagonist. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined."

Again, Hume says, "It is experience only which gives authority to human testimony; and it is the same experience which assures us of the laws of nature. When, therefore, these two kinds of experience are contrary, we have nothing to do but to subtract the one from the other, and embrace an opinion either on one side or the other, with that assurance which arises from the remainder. But, according to the principle here explained, this subtraction, with regard to all popular religions, amounts to an entire annihilation; and therefore we may establish it as a maxim, that no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any such system of religion."

The claim no room for it on the ground of Theism. The claim here is, not that we are to be cautious, as doubtless we are, in regard to all evidence for prodigies

and miracles, but that the latter hold such a relation to the grounds of our belief that they can not be proved by human testimony. Let the question, however, be argued, as Hume claims to argue it, on the ground of theism, and let it be fairly stated, and it would seem impossible that there should be any difficulty respecting it. Do we believe in the existence of a personal God, intelligent and free?— not a God who is a part of nature, or a mere personification of the powers of nature, but one who is as distinct from nature as the builder of the house is from the house? Do we believe, with our best philosophers, either that the laws of nature are only the stated mode in which God operates; or that all nature, with all its laws, is perfectly under his control? Then we can find no difficulty in believing that such a God may, at any time when the good of his creatures requires it, change the mode of his operation, and suspend those laws. Would Hume accept this statement of the question? If so, the dispute is at an end; for this relation of God to nature involves the possibility both of a miracle and of its proof. It is incompatible with this relation, that experience should ever attain that character of absolute and necessary uniformity, in virtue of which alone its evidence can be set in opposition to that of testimony. If he would not accept this statement, he is an atheist or a pantheist; and we are not yet prepared to argue the question of miracles, for that can not be argued till it is fully conceded that a personal God exists.

Two spheres and movements the mind adapted to both. The above seems to me a sufficient answer to the argument of Hume. Our minds are constituted with reference to our position under both the natural and the moral government of God. But Hume does not take the moral government of God into his account at all. This is his great mistake. It is like the mistake

A DOUBLE MOVEMENT.

31

of the astronomer who should carefully notice the recurring movements of the planets around their primary, but should fail to notice that mightier movement by which, as we are told, the planets and suns are all borne enward toward some unknown point in infinite space. Experience may enable him to determine and to calculate the movements of the first order; but if he would know that of the second, he must inquire of Him who carries it forward. The moral government of God is a movement in a line onward toward some grand consummation, in which the principles, indeed, are ever the same, but the developments are always new, — in which, therefore, no experience of the past can indicate with certainty what new openings of truth, what new manifestations of goodness, what new phases of the moral heavens may appear. To this movement, the circular and uniform one, in which alone experience is possible, is entirely subordinate; and it accords with our natural expectations and grounds of belief that the less important should be flexible to the demands of that which is more so. It is on this double movement, and the subordination of the lower, that the high harmonies of the universe depend. The constitution of our nature. is adapted to both movements separately, and as related; and that nature is true to itself and to its position when men readily accept evidence for miraculous events. To render such events fully credible, we only need to show that they are demanded by great moral interests. The presumption of uniformity is then balanced by that of interposition, and the full weight of testimony comes in without a counterpoise. It is thus that there is provision for both the scientific and the supernatural element; and the system that would exclude either is narrow and inadequate.

The difficulty with the most of those who have opposed Hume has been, that they have permitted him,