Evidence of Christianity | Page 5

and human
conduct at present, or which makes men then to have been a different
kind of beings from what they are now.
But the short consideration which, independently of every other,
convinces me that there is no solid foundation in Mr. Hume's
conclusion, is the following. When a theorem is proposed to a
mathematician, the first thing he does with it is to try it upon a simple
case, and if it produce a false result, he is sure that there must be some
mistake in the demonstration. Now to proceed in this way with what
may be called Mr. Hume's theorem. If twelve men, whose probity and
good sense I had long known, should seriously and circumstantially
relate to me an account of a miracle wrought before their eyes, and in

which it was impossible that they should be deceived: if the governor
of the country, hearing a rumour of this account, should call these men
into his presence, and offer them a short proposal, either to confess the
imposture, or submit to be tied up to a gibbet; if they should refuse with
one voice to acknowledge that there existed any falsehood or imposture
in the case: if this threat were communicated to them separately, yet
with no different effect; if it was at last executed; if I myself saw them,
one after another, consenting to be racked, burnt, or strangled, rather
than live up the truth of their account;--still if Mr. Hume's rule be my
guide, I am not to believe them. Now I undertake to say that there
exists not a sceptic in the world who would not believe them, or who
would defend such incredulity.
Instances of spurious miracles supported by strong apparent testimony
undoubtedly demand examination; Mr. Hume has endeavoured to
fortify his argument by some examples of this kind. I hope in a proper
place to show that none of them reach the strength or circumstances of
the Christian evidence. In these, however, consists the weight of his
objection; in the principle itself, I am persuaded, there is none.


PART I.
OF THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY,
AND WHEREIN IT IS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE EVIDENCE
ALLEGED FOR OTHER MIRACLES.
The two propositions which I shall endeavour to establish are these:
I. That there is satisfactory evidence that many professing to be original
witnesses of the Christian miracles passed their lives in labours,
dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the
accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief
of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives,
to new rules of conduct.

2. That there is not satisfactory evidence that persons professing to be
original witnesses of other miracles, in their nature as certain as these
are, have ever acted in the same manner, in attestation of the accounts
which they delivered, and properly in consequence of their belief of
those accounts.
The first of these prepositions, as it forms the argument will stand at the
head of the following nine chapters.
CHAPTER I
There is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original
witness of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers,
and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts
which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their of belief of
those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to
new rules of conduct.
To support this proposition, two points are necessary to be made out:
first, that the Founder of the institution, his associates and immediate
followers, acted the part which the proposition imputes to them:
secondly, that they did so in attestation of the miraculous history
recorded in our Scriptures, and solely in consequence of their belief of
the truth of this history.
Before we produce any particular testimony to the activity and
sufferings which compose the subject of our first assertion, it will be
proper to consider the degree of probability which the assertion derives
from the nature of the case, that is, by inferences from those parts of the
case which, in point of fact, are on all hands acknowledged.
First, then, the Christian Religion exists, and, therefore, by some means
or other, was established. Now it either owes the principle of its
establishment, i. e. its first publication, to the activity of the Person who
was the founder of the institution, and of those who were joined with
him in the undertaking, or we are driven upon the strange supposition,
that, although they might lie by, others would take it up; although they
were quiet and silent, other persons busied themselves in the success

and propagation of their story. This is perfectly incredible. To me it
appears little less than certain, that, if the first announcing of the
religion by the Founder