CHA P. II.

That Miracles may be diftinguished from

"A

66

natural Events.

Miracle, fays Mr. Rouffeau, being an exception to the Laws of Na*ture we must know thefe: Laws, and

રૅ

" even know them all: But what Mortal is there who perfectly knows all the "Laws of Nature?".

This reasoning is founded upon an Equivocation, which difappears upon a more exact Definition of Miracles, than our Author gives us : We have observed that as Miracle is a palpable Exception to fome known Law of Nature.'

I. First, Miracle muft be reftrained to the known Laws of Nature. The defign of the Miracle being to atteft Revelation, it must be fenfible, and within every Body's reach ; but the exception to a Law is fenfible only fo far as the Law is well known.

II. To difcern a Miracle from an extraordinary Fact, a perfect knowledge of these Laws is not neceffary; a perfect knowledge would fuppofe that of the phyG 2

fical

fical Cause of these Laws; but I may know the Laws of motion, without knowing the secret Cause of motion: It is enough therefore to know the Phænomena.. Now the Science of Phænomena is Experience. Many are so ordinary and fo frequent that they are known to every Body. Miracles are Exceptions to fuch Phænomena; confequently they are of a Nature to be eafily known.

III. To be fure of a Miracle, it is not. even necessary to know all the Laws of Nature. It is fufficient to know the Law to which the Miracle forms an Exception.. I affirm that it is out of the Courfe of Nature for a Man who has been a Paralytic thirty eight Years together, to be cured by faying, Take up thy Bed, and walk: and I can make this Affertion, without knowing by what Law the Satellites of Jupiter move round that Planet, and though Newton himself did not boaft of knowing all the Laws of Nature *."

It is in vain therefore to add, with our Author, that fuch a Phænomenon as is a Miracle for Negroes, is only an ufual Event

Pag. 89. + Pag. 91.

with

with Europeans; - of which Kind are artificial Congelations.

But is that an Objection to the Miracles of the Gospel? Is there a Place upon Earth where the Refurrection of a dead Perfon is only a phyfical Experiment?

Were the Induftry of Man to improve daily ever so much, could it fucceed better in changing the Laws of Nature? Are true Miracles more within its Reach now than they were formerly?

God, who made Man, knows how far his Industry can reach; but if this fame God performs a Miracle, is it to be thought that he would shut himself up within the ever narrow Limits of human Industry?

"To judge rationally of the Laws of "Nature, it is faid we must know them "all: for one only which fhould not "be known, might, in certain Cafes un"known to the Spectators, change the Ef"fect of thofe which were known."

But why doth this unknown Law act all at once in a fenfible Manner, and change with Eclat a fettled Law of Nature? At the Voice of the Son of God the Dumb speak, the Deaf hear, the Lame walk, the Blind fee, the Dead rife. Are not such

Facts evidently out of the ordinary Course

of Nature?

Will

any one fay, that a Law unknown to the Spectators gave Speech to the Dumb, Hearing to the Deaf, Sight to the Blind, Life to the Dead? But does Mr. Rouleau think that fuch a Law of Nature really fubfifts? The fureft way in this Cafe is to reafon from Experience and Obfervation, fince the Questión here is concerning Nature, and her wonted Progrefs? Now, is there a Law in Nature, which at the Pleature of a Man, in the twinkling of an Eye, can perform fo many Cures? I anfwer, No: and I appeal to the conftant Teftimony of History and Experience, which inform me, that fuch Phænomena do not hap pen; and that confequently, the Law to which we would wish to attribute the Honour of it, is a Chimera. What does our Author urge, to establish the Existence of this Law? Perhaps, fays he, á Law un"known to the Spectators changes the Ef"fect of those Laws which we do know." It is only upon a perhaps then, that the Exiftence of fuch a Law is fupported, which could not be unknown if it was real, confidering the Wonders it produced. However,

However, Mr. Rousseau acknowledges that fuch Law is unknown to him, and to his Reader; he might full as well have faid, that it is fo to the whole Earth; and if we grant that it exifts, it will always remain to be explained why it accommodated itself with fo much Regularity and Precifenefs at His fpeaking who put it in

action.

"I know not, he adds, whether the "Art of Healing be yet found out."

Though it be worthy of a Philofopher frequently to fay, I know not; I must confefs it is ftretching Scepticism too far, to rest undetermined upon this Question; Is the Art of Healing yet found out?

We may anfwer, that this Art is but imperfectly found out; that there are Ills fuperior to its Power, fince at laft Man muft die; and that by the Confeffion of the Physicians, there are fome Disorders naturally incurable. This Question therefore, Is the Art of Healing yet found out? amounts to this, which it is easy to refolve: Is there an infallible Prefervative against Death? For if the Skill of Phyfi cians cannot at any age preserve us from Death, it follows, that the Art of Heal

G4

ing,