r of the miracle can only be
established by reason." Before Hume, assaults on the miracles recorded in
Scripture were numerous and varied. Spinoza and the Pantheistic School had
started the question, "Are miracles possible?" and had taken the negative.
Hume's question is, "Are miracles credible?" And as they are contrary to
human experience, his answer is essentially that it must be always more
probable that a miracle is false than that it is true; since it is not
contrary to experience that witnesses are false or deceived. With him it
is, therefore, a question of the preponderance of evidence, which he
declares to be always against the miracle. This is not the place to
discuss these topics. Archbishop Whately has practically illustrated the
fallacy of Hume's reasoning, in a little book called _Historic Doubts,
relative to Napoleon Bonaparte_, in which, with Hume's logic, he has
proved, that the great emperor never lived; and Whately's successor in the
archbishopric of Dublin, Dr. Trench, has given us some thoughtful words on
the subject: "So long as we abide in the region of nature, miraculous and
improbable, miraculous and incredible may be allowed to remain convertible
terms; but once lift up the whole discussion into a higher region, once
acknowledge aught higher than nature--_a kingdom of God_, and men the
intended denizens of it--and the whole argument loses its strength and the
force of its conclusions."

Hume's death occurred on the 25th of August, 1776. His scepticism, or
philosophy as he called it, remained with him to the end. He even diverted
himself with the prospect of the excuses he would make to Charon as he
reached the fatal river, and is among the few doubters who have calmly
approached the grave without that concern which the Christian's hope alone
is generally able to dispel.

WILLIAM ROBERTSON.--the second of the great historians of the eighteenth
century, although very different from the others in his personal life and
in his creed,--was, like them, a representative and creature of the age.
They form, indeed, a trio in literary character as well as in period; and
we have letters from each to the others on the appearance of their works,
showing that they form also what in the present day is called a "Mutual
Admiration Society." They were above common envy: they recognized each
other's excellence, and forbore to speak of each other's faults. As a
philosopher, Hume was the greatest of the three; as