Nowwhetheritbesoornot，canonlyappearuponexamination；anditisincumbentonthesephilosopherstomakegoodtheirassertion，bydefiningordescribingthatnecessity，andpointingitouttousintheoperationsofmaterialcauses。
Itwouldseem，indeed，thatmenbeginatthewrongendofthisquestionconcerninglibertyandnecessity，whentheyenteruponitbyexaminingthefacultiesofthesoul，theinfluenceoftheunderstanding，andtheoperationsofthewill。Letthemfirstdiscussamoresimplequestion，namely，theoperationsofbodyandofbruteunintelligentmatter；
andtrywhethertheycanthereformanyideaofcausationandnecessity，exceptthatofaconstantconjunctionofobjects，andsubsequentinferenceofthemindfromonetoanother。Ifthesecircumstancesform，inreality，thewholeofthatnecessity，whichweconceiveinmatter，andifthesecircumstancesbealsouniversallyacknowledgedto
takeplaceintheoperationsofthemind，thedisputeisatanend；atleast，mustbeownedtobethenceforthmerelyverbal。Butaslongaswewillrashlysuppose，thatwehavesomefartherideaofnecessityandcausationintheoperationsofexternalobjects；atthesametime，thatwecanfindnothingfartherinthevoluntaryactionsofthemind；thereisnopossibilityofbringingthequestiontoanydeterminateissue，whileweproceeduponsoerroneousasupposition。Theonlymethodofundeceivingusistomountuphigher；toexaminethenarrowextentofsciencewhenappliedtomaterialcauses；andtoconvinceourselvesthatallweknowofthemistheconstantconjunctionandinferenceabovementioned。Wemay，perhaps，findthatitiswithdifficultyweareinducedtofixsuchnarrowlimitstohumanunderstanding:Butwecanafterwardsfindnodifficultywhenwecometoapplythisdoctrinetotheactionsofthewill。
Forasitisevidentthatthesehavearegularconjunctionwithmotivesandcircumstancesandcharacters，andaswealwaysdrawinferencesfromonetotheother，wemustbeobligedtoacknowledgeinwordsthatnecessity，whichwehavealreadyavowed，ineverydeliberationofourlives，andineverystepofourconductandbehaviour。[22]
Buttoproceedinthisreconcilingprojectwithregardtothequestionoflibertyandnecessity；themostcontentiousquestionofmetaphysics，themostcontentiousscience；itwillnotrequiremanywordstoprove，thatallmankindhaveeveragreedinthedoctrineoflibertyaswellasinthatofnecessity，andthatthewholedispute，inthisrespectalso，hasbeenhithertomerelyverbal。Forwhatismeantbyliberty，whenapplied
tovoluntaryactions？Wecannotsurelymeanthatactionshavesolittleconnexionwithmotives，inclinations，andcircumstances，thatonedoesnotfollowwithacertaindegreeofuniformityfromtheother，andthatoneaffordsnoinferencebywhichwecanconcludetheexistenceoftheother。Fortheseareplainandacknowledgedmattersoffact。Byliberty，then，wecanonlymean；thisis，ifwechoosetoremainatrest，wemay；ifwechoosetomove，wealsomay。Nowthishypotheticallibertyisuniversallyallowedtobelongtoeveryonewhoisnotaprisonerandinchains。Here，then，isnosubjectofdispute。
Whateverdefinitionwemaygiveofliberty，weshouldbecarefultoobservetworequisitecircumstances；，thatitbeconsistentwithplainmatteroffact；，thatitbeconsistentwithitself。Ifweobservethesecircumstances，andrenderourdefinitionintelligible，Iampersuadedthatallmankindwillbefoundofoneopinionwithregardtoit。
Itisuniversallyallowedthatnothingexistswithoutacauseofitsexistence，andthatchance，whenstrictlyexamined，isamerenegativeword，andmeansnotanyrealpowerwhichhasanywhereabeinginnature。Butitispretendedthatsomecausesarenecessary，somenotnecessary。Herethenistheadvantageofdefinitions。Letanyoneacause，withoutcomprehending，asapartofthedefinition，awithitseffect；
andlethimshowdistinctlytheoriginoftheidea，expressedbythedefinition；andIshallreadilygiveupthewholecontroversy。Butiftheforegoingexplicationofthematterbereceived，thismustbeabsolutelyimpracticable。
Hadnotobjectsaregularconjunctionwitheachother，weshouldneverhaveentertainedanynotionofcauseandeffect；andthisregularconjunctionproducesthatinferenceoftheunderstanding，whichistheonlyconnexion，thatwecanhaveanycomprehensionof。Whoeverattemptsadefinitionofcause，exclusiveofthesecircumstances，willbeobligedeithertoemployunintelligibletermsorsuchasaresynonymoustothetermwhichheendeavourstodefine。[23]
Andifthedefinitionabovementionedbeadmitted；liberty，whenopposedtonecessity，nottoconstraint，isthesamethingwithchance；whichisuniversallyallowedtohavenoexistence。
PARTII。
T/HERE\isnomethodofreasoningmorecommon，andyetnonemoreblameable，than，inphilosophicaldisputes，toendeavourtherefutationofanyhypothesis，byapretenceofitsdangerousconsequencestoreligionandmorality。Whenanyopinionleadstoabsurdities，itiscertainlyfalse；butitisnotcertainthatanopinionisfalse，becauseitisofdangerousconsequence。Suchtopics，therefore，oughtentirelytobeforborne；asservingnothingtothediscoveryoftruth，butonlytomakethepersonofanantagonistodious。ThisIobserveingeneral，withoutpretendingtodrawanyadvantagefromit。Ifranklysubmittoanexaminationofthiskind，andshallventuretoaffirmthatthedoctrines，bothofnecessityandofliberty，asaboveexplained，arenotonlyconsistentwithmorality，butareabsolutelyessentialtoitssupport。
Necessitymaybedefinedtwoways，conformablytothetwodefinitionsof，ofwhichitmakesanessentialpart。Itconsistseitherintheconstantconjunctionoflikeobjects，orintheinferenceoftheunderstandingfromoneobjecttoanother。Nownecessity，inboththesesenses，which，indeed，areatbottomthesamehasuniversally，thoughtacitly，intheschools，inthepulpit，andincommonlife，beenallowedtobelongtothewillofman；andnoonehaseverpretendedtodenythatwecandrawinferencesconcerninghumanactions，andthatthoseinferencesarefoundedontheexperiencedunionoflikeactions，withlikemotives，inclinations，andcircumstances。Theonlyparticularinwhichanyonecandiffer，is，thateither，perhaps，hewillrefusetogivethenameofnecessitytothispropertyofhumanactions:Butaslongasthemeaningisunderstood，Ihopethewordcandonoharm:Orthathewillmaintainitpossibletodiscoversomethingfartherintheoperationsofmatter。Butthis，itmustbeacknowledged，can
beofnoconsequencetomoralityorreligion，whateveritmaybetonaturalphilosophyormetaphysics。Wemayherebemistakeninassertingthatthereisnoideaofanyothernecessityorconnexionintheactionsofbody:Butsurelyweascribenothingtotheactionsofthemind，butwhateveryonedoes，andmustreadilyallowof。Wechangenocircumstanceinthereceivedorthodoxsystemwithregardtothewill，butonlyinthatwithregardtomaterialobjectsandcauses。Nothing，therefore，canbemoreinnocent，atleast，thanthisdoctrine。
Alllawsbeingfoundedonrewardsandpunishments，itissupposedasafundamentalprinciple，thatthesemotiveshavearegularanduniforminfluenceonthemind，andbothproducethegoodandpreventtheevilactions。Wemaygivetothisinfluencewhatnameweplease；but，asitisusuallyconjoinedwiththeaction，itmustbeesteemeda，andbelookeduponasaninstanceofthatnecessity，whichwewouldhereestablish。
Theonlyproperobjectofhatredorvengeanceisapersonorcreature，endowedwiththoughtandconsciousness；
andwhenanycriminalorinjuriousactionsexcitethatpassion，itisonlybytheirrelationtotheperson，orconnexionwithhim。Actionsare，bytheirverynature，temporaryandperishing；andwheretheyproceednotfromsomeinthecharacteranddispositionofthepersonwhoperformedthem，theycanneitherredoundtohishonour，ifgood；norinfamy，ifevil。Theactionsthemselvesmaybeblameable；theymaybecontrarytoalltherulesofmoralityandreligion:Butthepersonisnotanswerableforthem；andastheyproceededfromnothinginhimthatisdurableandconstant，andleavenothingofthatnaturebehindthem，itisimpossiblehecan，upontheiraccount，becometheobjectofpunishmentorvengeance。Accordingtotheprinciple，therefore，whichdeniesnecessity，andconsequentlycauses，amanisaspureanduntainted，afterhavingcommittedthemosthorridcrime，asatthefirstmomentofhisbirth，norishischaracteranywiseconcernedinhisactions，sincetheyarenotderivedfromit，andthewickednessoftheonecanneverbeusedasaproofofthedepravityoftheother。
Menarenotblamedforsuchactionsastheyperformignorantlyandcasually，whatevermaybetheconsequences。
Why？butbecausetheprinciplesoftheseactionsareonlymomentary，andterminateinthemalone。Menarelessblamedforsuchactionsastheyperformhastilyandunpremeditatedlythanforsuchasproceedfromdeliberation。
Forwhatreason？butbecauseahastytemper，thoughaconstantcauseorprincipleinthemind，operatesonlybyintervals，andinfectsnotthewholecharacter。Again，repentancewipesoffeverycrime，ifattendedwithareformationoflifeandmanners。Howisthistobeaccountedfor？butbyassertingthatactionsrenderapersoncriminalmerelyastheyareproofsofcriminalprinciplesinthemind；andwhen，byanalterationoftheseprinciples，theyceasetobejustproofs，theylikewiseceasetobecriminal。
But，exceptuponthedoctrineofnecessity，theyneverwerejustproofs，andconsequentlyneverwerecriminal。
Itwillbeequallyeasytoprove，andfromthesamearguments，that，accordingtothatdefinitionabovementioned，inwhichallmenagree，isalsoessentialtomorality，andthatnohumanactions，whereitiswanting，aresusceptibleofanymoralqualities，orcanbetheobjectseitherofapprobationordislike。Forasactionsareobjectsofourmoralsentiment，sofaronlyastheyareindicationsoftheinternalcharacter，passions，andaffections；itisimpossiblethattheycangiveriseeithertopraiseorblame，wheretheyproceednotfromtheseprinciples，butarederivedaltogetherfromexternalviolence。
Ipretendnottohaveobviatedorremovedallobjectionstothistheory，withregardtonecessityandliberty。Icanforeseeotherobjections，derivedfromtopicswhichhavenotherebeentreatedof。Itmaybesaid，forinstance，that，ifvoluntaryactionsbesubjectedtothesamelawsofnecessitywiththeoperationsofmatter，thereisacontinuedchainofnecessarycauses，pre-ordainedandpre-determined，reachingfromtheoriginalcauseofalltoeverysinglevolitionofeveryhumancreature。Nocontingencyanywhereintheuniverse；noindifference；noliberty。Whileweact，weare，atthesametime，actedupon。
TheultimateAuthorofallourvolitionsistheCreatoroftheworld，whofirstbestowedmotiononthisimmensemachine，andplacedallbeingsinthatparticularposition，whenceeverysubsequentevent，byaninevitablenecessity，mustresult。Humanactions，therefore，eithercanhavenomoralturpitudeatall，asproceedingfromsogoodacause；
oriftheyhaveanyturpitude，theymustinvolveourCreatorinthesameguilt，whileheisacknowledgedtobetheirultimatecauseandauthor。Forasaman，whofiredamine，isanswerableforalltheconsequenceswhetherthetrainheemployedbelongorshort；sowhereveracontinuedchainofnecessarycausesisfixed，thatBeing，eitherfiniteorinfinite，whoproducesthefirst，islikewisetheauthorofalltherest，andmustbothbeartheblameandacquirethepraisewhichbelongtothem。Ourclearandunalterableideasofmoralityestablishthisrule，uponunquestionablereasons，whenweexaminetheconsequencesofanyhumanaction；andthesereasonsmuststillhavegreaterforcewhenappliedtothevolitionsandintentionsofaBeinginfinitelywiseandpowerful。Ignoranceorimpotencemaybepleaded
forsolimitedacreatureasman；butthoseimperfectionshavenoplaceinourCreator。Heforesaw，heordained，heintendedallthoseactionsofmen，whichwesorashlypronouncecriminal。Andwemustthereforeconclude，eitherthattheyarenotcriminal，orthattheDeity，notman，isaccountableforthem。Butaseitherofthesepositionsisabsurdandimpious，itfollows，thatthedoctrinefromwhichtheyarededucedcannotpossiblybetrue，asbeingliabletoallthesameobjections。Anabsurdconsequence，ifnecessary，provestheoriginaldoctrinetobeabsurd；inthesamemannerascriminalactionsrendercriminaltheoriginalcause，iftheconnexionbetweenthembenecessaryandinevitable。
Thisobjectionconsistsoftwoparts，whichweshallexamineseparately；，that，ifhumanactionscanbetracedup，byanecessarychain，totheDeity，theycanneverbecriminal；onaccountoftheinfiniteperfectionofthatBeingfromwhomtheyarederived，andwhocanintendnothingbutwhatisaltogethergoodandlaudable。Or，，iftheybecriminal，wemustretracttheattributeofperfection，whichweascribetotheDeity，andmustacknowledgehimtobetheultimateauthorofguiltandmoralturpitudeinallhiscreatures。
Theanswertothefirstobjectionseemsobviousandconvincing。Therearemanyphilosopherswho，afteranexactscrutinyofallthephenomenaofnature，conclude，thattheW/HOLE\，consideredasonesystem，is，ineveryperiodofitsexistence，orderedwithperfectbenevolence；andthattheutmostpossiblehappinesswill，intheend，resulttoallcreatedbeings，withoutanymixtureofpositiveorabsoluteillormisery。Everyphysicalill，saythey，makesanessentialpartofthisbenevolentsystem，andcouldnotpossiblyberemoved，evenbytheDeityhimself，consideredasawiseagent，withoutgivingentrancetogreaterill，orexcludinggreatergood，whichwillresult
fromit。Fromthistheory，somephilosophers，andtheancientamongtherest，derivedatopicofconsolationunderallafflictions，whiletheytaughttheirpupilsthatthoseillsunderwhichtheylabouredwere，inreality，goodstotheuniverse；andthattoanenlargedview，whichcouldcomprehendthewholesystemofnature，everyeventbecameanobjectofjoyandexultation。Butthoughthistopicbespeciousandsublime，itwassoonfoundinpracticeweakandineffectual。Youwouldsurelymoreirritatethanappeaseamanlyingundertherackingpainsofthegoutbypreachinguptohimtherectitudeofthosegenerallaws，whichproducedthemalignanthumoursinhisbody，andledthemthroughthepropercanals，tothesinewsandnerves，wheretheynowexcitesuchacutetorments。Theseenlargedviewsmay，foramoment，pleasetheimaginationofaspeculativeman，whoisplacedineaseandsecurity；
butneithercantheydwellwithconstancyonhismind，eventhoughundisturbedbytheemotionsofpainorpassion；muchlesscantheymaintaintheirgroundwhenattackedbysuchpowerfulantagonists。Theaffectionstakeanarrowerandmorenaturalsurveyoftheirobject；andbyaneconomy，moresuitabletotheinfirmityofhumanminds，regardalonethebeingsaroundus，andareactuatedbysucheventsasappeargoodorilltotheprivatesystem。
Thecaseisthesamewithaswith
ill。Itcannotreasonablybesupposed，thatthoseremoteconsiderations，whicharefoundofsolittleefficacywithregardtoone，willhaveamorepowerfulinfluencewithregardtotheother。Themindofmanissoformedbynaturethat，upontheappearanceofcertaincharacters，dispositions，andactions，itimmediatelyfeelsthesentimentofapprobationorblame；norarethereanyemotionsmoreessentialtoitsframeandconstitution。Thecharacterswhichengageourapprobationarechieflysuchascontributetothepeaceandsecurityofhumansociety；asthecharacterswhichexciteblamearechieflysuchastendtopublicdetrimentanddisturbance:Whenceitmayreasonablybepresumed，thatthemoralsentimentsarise，eithermediatelyorimmediately，fromareflectionoftheseoppositeinterests。Whatthoughphilosophicalmeditationsestablishadifferentopinionorconjecture；thateverythingisrightwithregard
totheW/HOLE\，andthatthequalities，whichdisturbsociety，are，inthemain，asbeneficial，andareassuitabletotheprimaryintentionofnatureasthosewhichmoredirectlypromoteitshappinessandwelfare？Aresuchremoteanduncertainspeculationsabletocounterbalancethesentimentswhicharisefromthenaturalandimmediateviewoftheobjects？Amanwhoisrobbedofaconsiderablesum；doeshefindhisvexationforthelossanywisediminishedbythesesublimereflections？Whythenshouldhismoralresentmentagainstthecrimebesupposedincompatiblewiththem？Orwhyshouldnottheacknowledgmentofarealdistinctionbetweenviceandvirtuebereconcileabletoallspeculativesystemsofphilosophy，aswellasthatofarealdistinctionbetweenpersonalbeautyanddeformity？
Boththesedistinctionsarefoundedinthenaturalsentimentsofthehumanmind:Andthesesentimentsarenottobecontrouledoralteredbyanyphilosophicaltheoryorspeculationwhatsoever。
Theobjectionadmitsnotofsoeasyandsatisfactoryananswer；norisitpossibletoexplaindistinctly，howtheDeitycanbethemediatecauseofalltheactionsofmen，withoutbeingtheauthorofsinandmoralturpitude。Thesearemysteries，whichmerenaturalandunassistedreasonisveryunfittohandle；andwhateversystemsheembraces，shemustfindherselfinvolvedininextricabledifficulties，andevencontradictions，ateverystepwhichshetakeswithregardtosuchsubjects。Toreconciletheindifferenceandcontingencyofhumanactionswithprescience；ortodefendabsolutedecrees，andyetfreetheDeityfrombeingtheauthorofsin，hasbeenfoundhithertotoexceedallthepowerofphilosophy。Happy，ifshebethencesensibleofhertemerity，whenshepriesintothesesublimemysteries；andleavingascenesofullofobscuritiesandperplexities，return，withsuitablemodesty，tohertrueandproperprovince，theexaminationofcommonlife；whereshewillfinddifficultiesenoughtoemployherenquiries，withoutlaunchingintosoboundlessanoceanofdoubt，uncertainty，andcontradiction!
A/LL\ourreasoningsconcerningmatteroffactarefoundedonaspeciesofA/NALOGY\，whichleadsustoexpectfromanycausethesameevents，whichwehaveobservedtoresultfromsimilarcauses。Wherethecausesareentirelysimilar，theanalogyisperfect，andtheinference，drawnfromit，isregardedascertainandconclusive:Nordoesanymaneverentertainadoubt，whereheseesapieceofiron，thatitwillhaveweightandcohesionofparts；asinallotherinstances，whichhaveeverfallenunderhisobservation。Butwheretheobjectshavenotsoexactasimilarity，theanalogyislessperfect，andtheinferenceislessconclusive；thoughstillithassomeforce，
inproportiontothedegreeofsimilarityandresemblance。Theanatomicalobservations，formedupononeanimal，are，bythisspeciesofreasoning，extendedtoallanimals；anditiscertain，thatwhenthecirculationoftheblood，forinstance，isclearlyprovedtohaveplaceinonecreature，asafrog，orfish，itformsastrongpresumption，thatthesameprinciplehasplaceinall。Theseanalogicalobservationsmaybecarriedfarther，eventothisscience，ofwhichwearenowtreating；andanytheory，bywhichweexplaintheoperationsoftheunderstanding，ortheoriginandconnexionofthepassionsinman，willacquireadditionalauthority，ifwefind，thatthesametheoryisrequisitetoexplainthesamephenomenainallotheranimals。Weshallmaketrialofthis，withregardtothehypothesis，bywhichwehave，intheforegoingdiscourse，endeavouredtoaccountforallexperimentalreasonings；anditishoped，thatthisnewpointofviewwillservetoconfirmallourformerobservations。
，Itseemsevident，thatanimalsaswellasmenlearnmanythingsfromexperience，andinfer，thatthesameeventswillalwaysfollowfromthesamecauses。Bythisprincipletheybecomeacquaintedwiththemoreobviouspropertiesofexternalobjects，andgradually，fromtheirbirth，treasureupaknowledgeofthenatureoffire，water，earth，stones，heights，depths，&。，andoftheeffectswhichresultfromtheiroperation。Theignoranceandinexperienceoftheyoungarehereplainlydistinguishablefromthecunningandsagacityoftheold，whohavelearned，bylongobservation，toavoidwhathurtthem，andtopursuewhatgaveeaseorpleasure。Ahorse，thathasbeenaccustomedtothefield，becomesacquaintedwiththeproperheightwhichhecanleap，andwillneverattemptwhatexceedshisforceandability。Anoldgreyhoundwilltrustthemorefatiguingpartofthechacetotheyounger，andwillplacehimselfsoas
tomeetthehareinherdoubles；
noraretheconjectures，whichheformsonthisoccasion，foundedinanythingbuthisobservationandexperience。
Thisisstillmoreevidentfromtheeffectsofdisciplineandeducationonanimals，who，bytheproperapplicationofrewardsandpunishments，maybetaughtanycourseofaction，andmostcontrarytotheirnaturalinstinctsandpropensities。Isitnotexperience，whichrendersadogapprehensiveofpain，whenyoumenacehim，orliftupthewhiptobeathim？Isitnotevenexperience，whichmakeshimanswertohisname，andinfer，fromsuchanarbitrarysound，thatyoumeanhimratherthananyofhisfellows，andintendtocallhim，whenyoupronounceitinacertainmanner，andwithacertaintoneandaccent？
Inallthesecases，wemayobserve，thattheanimalinferssomefactbeyondwhatimmediatelystrikeshissenses；
andthatthisinferenceisaltogetherfoundedonpastexperience，whilethecreatureexpectsfromthepresentobjectthesameconsequences，whichithasalwaysfoundinitsobservationtoresultfromsimilarobjects。
，Itisimpossible，thatthisinferenceoftheanimalcanbefoundedonanyprocessofargumentorreasoning，bywhichheconcludes，thatlikeeventsmustfollowlikeobjects，andthatthecourseofnaturewillalwaysberegularinitsoperations。Foriftherebeinrealityanyargumentsofthisnature，theysurelylietooabstrusefortheobservationofsuchimperfectunderstandings；sinceitmaywellemploytheutmostcareandattentionofaphilosophicgeniustodiscoverandobservethem。Animals，thereforearenotguidedintheseinferencesbyreasoning:Neitherarechildren；neitherarethegeneralityofmankind，intheirordinaryactionsandconclusions:Neitherarephilosophersthemselves，who，inalltheactivepartsoflife，are，inthemain，thesamewiththevulgar，andaregovernedbythesamemaxims。Naturemusthaveprovidedsomeotherprinciple，ofmoreready，and
moregeneraluseandapplication；norcananoperationofsuchimmenseconsequenceinlife，asthatofinferringeffectsfromcauses，betrustedtotheuncertainprocessofreasoningandargumentation。Werethisdoubtfulwithregardtomen，itseemstoadmitofnoquestionwithregardtothebrutecreation；andtheconclusionbeingoncefirmlyestablishedintheone，wehaveastrongpresumption，fromalltherulesofanalogy，thatitoughttobeuniversallyadmitted，withoutanyexceptionorreserve。Itiscustomalone，whichengagesanimals，fromeveryobject，thatstrikestheirsenses，toinferitsusualattendant，andcarriestheirimagination，fromtheappearanceoftheone，toconceivetheother，inthatparticularmanner，whichwedenominate。Nootherexplicationcanbegivenofthisoperation，inallthehigher，aswellaslowerclassesofsensitivebeings，whichfallunderournoticeandobservation。[24]
Butthoughanimalslearnmanypartsoftheirknowledgefromobservation，therearealsomanypartsofit，whichtheyderivefromtheoriginalhandofnature；whichmuchexceedtheshareofcapacitytheypossessonordinaryoccasions；andinwhichtheyimprove，littleornothing，bythelongestpracticeandexperience。ThesewedenominateI/NSTINCTS\，andaresoapttoadmireassomethingveryextraordinary，andinexplicablebyallthedisquisitionsofhumanunderstanding。Butourwonderwill，perhaps，ceaseordiminish，whenweconsider，thattheexperimentalreasoningitself，whichwepossessincommonwithbeasts，andonwhichthewholeconductoflifedepends，isnothingbutaspeciesofinstinctormechanicalpower，thatactsinusunknowntoourselves；andinitschiefoperations，isnotdirectedbyanysuchrelationsorcomparisonsofideas，asaretheproperobjectsofourintellectualfaculties。Thoughtheinstinctbedifferent，yetstillitisaninstinct，whichteachesamantoavoidthefire；asmuchasthat，whichteachesabird，withsuchexactness，theartofincubation，andthewholeeconomyandorderofitsnursery。
T/HERE\is，inDr。T/ILLOTSON'S\writings，anargumentagainstthe，whichisasconcise，andelegant，andstrongasanyargumentcanpossiblybesupposedagainstadoctrine，solittleworthyofaseriousrefutation。Itisacknowledgedonallhands，saysthatlearnedprelate，thattheauthority，eitherofthescriptureoroftradition，isfoundedmerelyinthetestimonyoftheApostles，whowereeye-witnessestothosemiraclesofourSaviour，bywhichheprovedhisdivinemission。Ourevidence，then，for，thetruthofthereligionislessthantheevidenceforthetruthofoursenses；
because，eveninthefirstauthorsofourreligion，itwasnogreater；anditisevidentitmustdiminishinpassingfromthemtotheirdisciples；norcananyonerestsuchconfidenceintheirtestimony，asintheimmediateobjectofhissenses。Butaweakerevidencecanneverdestroyastronger；andtherefore，werethedoctrineoftherealpresenceeversoclearlyrevealedinscripture，itweredirectlycontrarytotherulesofjustreasoningtogiveourassenttoit。Itcontradictssense，thoughboththescriptureandtradition，onwhichitissupposedtobebuilt，carrynotsuchevidencewiththemassense；whentheyareconsideredmerelyasexternalevidences，andarenotbroughthometoeveryone'sbreast，bytheimmediateoperationoftheHolySpirit。
Nothingissoconvenientasadecisiveargumentofthiskind，whichmustatleastthemostarrogantbigotryandsuperstition，andfreeusfromtheirimpertinentsolicitations。Iflattermyself，thatIhavediscoveredanargumentofalikenature，which，ifjust，will，withthewiseandlearned，beaneverlastingchecktoallkindsofsuperstitiousdelusion，andconsequently，willbeusefulaslongastheworldendures。Forsolong，Ipresume，willtheaccountsofmiraclesandprodigiesbefoundinallhistory，sacredandprofane。
Thoughexperiencebeouronlyguideinreasoningconcerningmattersoffact；itmustbeacknowledged，thatthisguideisnotaltogetherinfallible，butinsomecasesisapttoleadusintoerrors。One，whoinourclimate，shouldexpectbetterweatherinanyweekofJ/UNE\thaninoneofD/ECEMBER\，wouldreasonjustly，andconformablytoexperience；butitiscertain，thathemayhappen，intheevent，tofindhimselfmistaken。However，wemayobserve，that，insuchacase，hewouldhavenocausetocomplainofexperience；becauseitcommonlyinformsusbeforehandoftheuncertainty，bythatcontrarietyofevents，whichwemaylearnfromadiligentobservation。Alleffectsfollownotwithlikecertaintyfromtheirsupposedcauses。Someeventsarefound，inallcountriesandallages，tohavebeenconstantlyconjoinedtogether:Othersarefoundtohavebeenmorevariable，andsometimestodisappointourexpectations；
sothat，inourreasoningsconcerningmatteroffact，thereareallimaginabledegreesofassurance，fromthehighestcertaintytothelowestspeciesofmoralevidence。
Awiseman，therefore，proportionshisbelieftotheevidence。Insuchconclusionsasarefoundedonaninfallibleexperience，heexpectstheeventwiththelastdegreeofassurance，andregardshispastexperienceasafullofthefutureexistenceofthatevent。Inothercases，heproceedswithmorecaution:Heweighstheoppositeexperiments:Heconsiderswhichsideissupportedbythegreaternumberofexperiments:Tothatsideheinclines，withdoubtandhesitation；andwhenatlasthefixeshisjudgement，theevidenceexceedsnotwhatweproperlycall。Allprobability，then，supposesanoppositionofexperimentsandobservations，wheretheonesideisfoundtooverbalancetheother，andtoproduceadegreeofevidence，proportionedtothesuperiority。
Ahundredinstancesorexperimentsononeside，andfiftyonanother，affordadoubtfulexpectationofanyevent；thoughahundreduniformexperiments，withonlyonethatiscontradictory，reasonablybegetaprettystrongdegreeofassurance。Inallcases，wemustbalancetheoppositeexperiments，wheretheyareopposite，anddeductthesmallernumberfromthegreater，inordertoknowtheexactforceofthesuperiorevidence。
Toapplytheseprinciplestoaparticularinstance；wemayobserve，thatthereisnospeciesofreasoningmorecommon，moreuseful，andevennecessarytohumanlife，thanthatwhichisderivedfromthetestimonyofmen，andthereportsofeye-witnessesandspectators。Thisspeciesofreasoning，perhaps，onemaydenytobefoundedontherelationofcauseandeffect。Ishallnotdisputeaboutaword。Itwillbesufficienttoobservethatourassuranceinanyargumentofthiskindisderivedfromnootherprinciplethanourobservationoftheveracityofhumantestimony，andoftheusualconformityoffactstothereportsofwitnesses。Itbeingageneralmaxim，thatnoobjectshaveanydiscoverableconnexiontogether，andthatalltheinferences，whichwecandrawfromonetoanother，
arefoundedmerelyonourexperienceoftheirconstantandregularconjunction；itisevident，thatweoughtnottomakeanexceptiontothismaximinfavourofhumantestimony，whoseconnexionwithanyeventseems，initself，aslittlenecessaryasanyother。Werenotthememorytenacioustoacertaindegree；hadnotmencommonlyaninclinationtotruthandaprincipleofprobity；weretheynotsensibletoshame，whendetectedinafalsehood:Werenotthese，Isay，discoveredbytobequalities，inherentinhumannature，weshouldneverreposetheleastconfidenceinhumantestimony。Amandelirious，ornotedforfalsehoodandvillainy，hasnomannerofauthoritywithus。
Andastheevidence，derivedfromwitnessesandhumantestimony，isfoundedonpastexperience，soitvarieswiththeexperience，andisregardedeitherasaora，accordingastheconjunctionbetweenanyparticularkindofreportandanykindofobjecthasbeenfoundtobeconstantorvariable。Thereareanumberofcircumstancestobetakenintoconsiderationinalljudgementsofthiskind；andtheultimatestandard，bywhichwedeterminealldisputes，thatmayariseconcerningthem，isalwaysderivedfromexperienceandobservation。Wherethisexperienceisnotentirelyuniformonanyside，itisattendedwithanunavoidablecontrarietyinourjudgements，andwiththesameoppositionandmutualdestructionofargumentasineveryotherkindofevidence。Wefrequentlyhesitateconcerningthereportsofothers。Webalancetheoppositecircumstances，whichcauseanydoubtoruncertainty；andwhenwediscoverasuperiorityonanyside，weinclinetoit；butstillwithadiminutionofassurance，inproportiontotheforceofitsantagonist。
Thiscontrarietyofevidence，inthepresentcase，maybederivedfromseveraldifferentcauses；fromtheoppositionofcontrarytestimony；fromthecharacterornumberofthewitnesses；fromthemanneroftheirdeliveringtheirtestimony；orfromtheunionofallthesecircumstances。Weentertainasuspicionconcerninganymatteroffact，whenthewitnessescontradicteachother；
whentheyarebutfew，orofadoubtfulcharacter；whentheyhaveaninterestinwhattheyaffirm；whentheydelivertheirtestimonywithhesitation，oronthecontrary，withtooviolentasseverations。Therearemanyotherparticularsofthesamekind，whichmaydiminishordestroytheforceofanyargument，derivedfromhumantestimony。
Suppose，forinstance，thatthefact，whichthetestimonyendeavourstoestablish，partakesoftheextraordinaryandthemarvellous；inthatcase，theevidence，resultingfromthetestimony，admitsofadiminution，greaterorless，inproportionasthefactismoreorlessunusual。Thereasonwhyweplaceanycreditinwitnessesandhistorians，isnotderivedfromany，whichweperceive，betweentestimonyandreality，butbecauseweareaccustomedtofindaconformitybetweenthem。Butwhenthefactattestedissuchaoneashasseldomfallenunderourobservation，hereisacontestoftwooppositeexperiences；ofwhichtheonedestroystheother，asfarasitsforcegoes，andthesuperiorcanonlyoperateonthemindbytheforce，whichremains。Theverysameprincipleofexperience，whichgivesusacertaindegreeofassuranceinthetestimonyofwitnesses，givesusalso，inthiscase，anotherdegreeofassuranceagainstthefact，whichtheyendeavourtoestablish；fromwhichcontradictiontherenecessarilyarisesacounterpoize，andmutualdestructionofbeliefandauthority。
C/ATO\；wasaproverbialsayinginR/OME\，evenduringthelifetimeofthatphilosophicalpatriot。[25]Theincredibilityofafact，itwasallowed，mightinvalidatesogreatanauthority。
TheI/NDIAN\prince，whorefusedtobelievethefirstrelationsconcerningtheeffectsoffrost，reasonedjustly；
anditnaturallyrequiredverystrongtestimonytoengagehisassenttofacts，thatarosefromastateofnature，withwhichhewasunacquainted，andwhichboresolittleanalogytothoseevents，ofwhichhehadhadconstantanduniformexperience。Thoughtheywerenotcontrarytohisexperience，theywerenotconformabletoit。[26]
Butinordertoencreasetheprobabilityagainstthetestimonyofwitnesses，letussuppose，thatthefact，whichtheyaffirm，insteadofbeingonlymarvellous，isreallymiraculous；andsupposealso，thatthetestimonyconsideredapartandinitself，amountstoanentireproof；inthatcase，thereisproofagainstproof，ofwhichthestrongestmustprevail，butstillwithadiminutionofitsforce，inproportiontothatofitsantagonist。
Amiracleisaviolationofthelawsofnature；andasafirmandunalterableexperiencehasestablishedtheselaws，theproofagainstamiracle，fromtheverynatureofthefact，isasentireasanyargumentfromexperiencecanpossiblybeimagined。Whyisitmorethanprobable，thatallmenmustdie；thatleadcannot，ofitself，remainsuspendedintheair；thatfireconsumeswood，andisextinguishedbywater；unlessitbe，thattheseeventsarefoundagreeabletothelawsofnature，andthereisrequiredaviolationoftheselaws，orinotherwords，amiracletopreventthem？
Nothingisesteemedamiracle，ifiteverhappeninthecommoncourseofnature。Itisnomiraclethataman，seeminglyingoodhealth，shoulddieonasudden:Becausesuchakindofdeath，thoughmoreunusualthananyother，hasyetbeenfrequentlyobservedtohappen。Butitisamiracle，thatadeadmanshouldcometolife；becausethathasneverbeenobservedinanyageorcountry。Theremust，therefore，beauniformexperienceagainsteverymiraculousevent，otherwisetheeventwouldnotmeritthatappellation。
Andasauniformexperienceamountstoaproof，thereishereadirectandfull，fromthenatureofthefact，againsttheexistenceofanymiracle；norcansuchaproofbedestroyed，orthemiraclerenderedcredible，butbyanoppositeproof，whichissuperior。[27]
Theplainconsequenceisanditisageneralmaximworthyofourattention，"thatnotestimonyissufficienttoestablishamiracle，unlessthetestimonybeofsuchakind，thatitsfalsehoodwouldbemoremiraculous，thanthefact，whichitendeavorstoestablish；andeveninthatcasethereisamutualdestructionofarguments，andthesuperioronlygivesusanassurancesuitabletothatdegreeofforce，whichremains，afterdeductingtheinferior。"Whenanyonetellsme，thathesawadeadmanrestoredtolife，I
immediatelyconsiderwithmyself，whetheritbemoreprobable，thatthispersonshouldeitherdeceiveorbedeceived，orthatthefact，whichherelates，shouldreallyhavehappened。Iweightheonemiracleagainsttheother；
andaccordingtothesuperiority，whichIdiscover，I
pronouncemydecision，andalwaysrejectthegreatermiracle。Ifthefalsehoodofhistestimonywouldbemoremiraculous，thantheeventwhichherelates；then，andnottillthen，canhepretendtocommandmybelieforopinion。
PARTII。
I/N\theforegoingreasoningwehavesupposed，thatthetestimony，uponwhichamiracleisfounded，maypossiblyamounttoanentireproof，andthatthefalsehoodofthattestimonywouldbearealprodigy:Butitiseasytoshew，thatwehavebeenagreatdealtooliberalinourconcession，andthatthereneverwasamiraculouseventestablishedonsofullanevidence。
For，thereisnottobefound，inallhistory，anymiracleattestedbyasufficientnumberofmen，ofsuchunquestionedgood-sense，education，andlearning，astosecureusagainstalldelusioninthemselves；ofsuchundoubtedintegrity，astoplacethembeyondallsuspicionofanydesigntodeceiveothers；ofsuchcreditandreputationintheeyesofmankind，astohaveagreatdealtoloseincaseoftheirbeingdetectedinanyfalsehood；
andatthesametime，attestingfactsperformedinsuchapublicmannerandinsocelebratedapartoftheworld，astorenderthedetectionunavoidable:Allwhichcircumstancesarerequisitetogiveusafullassuranceinthetestimonyofmen。
。Wemayobserveinhumannatureaprinciplewhich，ifstrictlyexamined，willbefoundtodiminishextremelytheassurance，whichwemight，fromhumantestimony，haveinanykindofprodigy。Themaxim，bywhichwecommonlyconductourselvesinourreasonings，is，thattheobjects，ofwhichwehavenoexperience，resemblesthose，ofwhichwehave；thatwhatwehavefoundtobemostusualisalwaysmostprobable；andthat
wherethereisanoppositionofarguments，weoughttogivethepreferencetosuchasarefoundedonthegreatestnumberofpastobservations。Butthough，inproceedingbythisrule，wereadilyrejectanyfactwhichisunusualandincredibleinanordinarydegree；yetinadvancingfarther，themindobservesnotalwaysthesamerule；butwhenanythingisaffirmedutterlyabsurdandmiraculous，itratherthemorereadilyadmitsofsuchafact，uponaccountofthatverycircumstance，whichoughttodestroyallitsauthority。Thepassionofand，arisingfrommiracles，beinganagreeableemotion，givesasensibletendencytowardsthebeliefofthoseevents，fromwhichitisderived。Andthisgoessofar，thateventhosewhocannotenjoythispleasureimmediately，norcanbelievethosemiraculousevents，ofwhichtheyareinformed，yetlovetopartakeofthesatisfactionatsecond-handorbyrebound，andplaceaprideanddelightinexcitingtheadmirationofothers。
Withwhatgreedinessarethemiraculousaccountsoftravellersreceived，theirdescriptionsofseaandlandmonsters，theirrelationsofwonderfuladventures，strangemen，and
uncouthmanners？Butifthespiritofreligionjoinitselftotheloveofwonder，thereisanendofcommonsense；andhumantestimony，inthesecircumstances，losesallpretensionstoauthority。Areligionistmaybeanenthusiast，andimagineheseeswhathasnoreality:Hemayknowhisnarrativetobefalse，andyetpersevereinit，withthebestintentionsintheworld，forthesakeofpromotingsoholyacause:Orevenwherethisdelusionhasnotplace，vanity，excitedbysostrongatemptation，operatesonhimmorepowerfullythanontherestofmankindinanyothercircumstances；andself-interestwithequalforce。Hisauditorsmaynothave，andcommonlyhavenot，sufficientjudgementtocanvasshisevidence:Whatjudgementtheyhave，theyrenouncebyprinciple，inthesesublimeandmysterioussubjects:Oriftheywereeversowillingtoemployit，passionandaheatedimaginationdisturbtheregularityofitsoperations。Theircredulityincreaseshisimpudence:Andhisimpudenceoverpowerstheircredulity。