misrepresenting him. In returning the manuscript, Mr Hume accompanied it with a letter to my friend, containing such observations as had occurred to him in the perusal. This letter, with the writer's permission, was transmitted to me. It is to it he alludes in the second sentence of that which he afterwards wrote to me, and which is inserted above.

It cannot be denied that, in the first letter, he appeared not a little hurt by the freedom of the manner in which his principles and reasoning had been canvassed. To complaints of this kind a few hints are subjoined as suggesting topics from which a sufficient answer might be drawn to some of my refutations and objections. In regard to a few particular expressions complained of, I have, as he justly observes, either removed or softened them, that I might, as much as possible, avoid the offence, without impairing the argument. For the hints he has thrown out, by way of reply, I consider myself as indebted to him. They have suggested objections which had not occurred to me, and which required to be obviated, that the argument might have all the weight, and all the illustration of which it is capable. I did accordingly, where it appeared requisite, introduce, and, in my judgment, refute the suggested answer. Thus I

was enabled to anticipate objections, and remove difficulties, which might have occurred to other readers, and been thought by some very momentous. But as the manuscript had, before then, been put into the hands of the printer at Edinburgh, I could not, at Aberdeen, avail myself of those hints, so easily as by making them the subject of notes which I could soon transmit to the printer, with directions in regard to the passages to which they refer. I was not a little surprised that I could find nothing in reply to my refutation of his abstract and metaphysical argument on the evidence of testimony displayed with so much ostentation in the first part of his Essay, the production of which argument to the public, seems to have been his principal motive for writing on the subject. All his observations of any moment were levelled against the answers which had been given to his more familiar and popular topics employed in the second part.-The letter, which is addressed to Dr Hugh Blair, Edinburgh, is as follows:

"SIR,

"I have perused the ingenious performance, which you was so obliging as to put into my hands,

"with all the attention possible; though not per"haps with all the seriousness and gravity which

66

you have so frequently recommended to me. But "the fault lies not in the piece, which is certainly "very acute, but in the subject. I know you will say it lies in neither, but in myself alone. If "that be so, I am sorry to say that I believe it is "incurable.

66

"I could wish that your friend had not chosen to

appear as a controversial writer, but had endea"voured to establish his principles, in general, "without any reference to a particular book or per

son; though I own he does me a great deal of honour, in thinking that any thing I have wrote de"serves his attention: For besides many inconveni

ences, which attends that kind of writing, I see it "is almost impossible to preserve decency and good "manners in it. This author, for instance, says "sometimes obliging things of me, much beyond "what I can presume to deserve; and I thence con"clude, that in general he did not mean to insult "me: Yet I meet with some other passages, more

66

worthy of Warburton and his followers, than of "so ingenious an author.

"But as I am not apt to lose my temper, and "would still less incline to do so with a friend of

66

yours, I shall calmly communicate to you some "remarks on the argument, since you seem to desire "it. I shall employ very few words, since a hint "will suffice to a gentleman of this author's pene"tration.

"Sect. 1. I would desire the author to consider, "whether the medium, by which we reason concern"ing human testimony, be different from that "which leads us to draw any inferences concerning "other human actions; that is, our knowledge "of human nature from experience? Or why it “is different? I suppose we conclude an honest man will not lie to us, in the same manner as we "conclude that he will not cheat us. As to the

66

66

66

66

youthful propensity to believe, which is corrected

by experience, it seems obvious, that children ad

opt, blindfold, all the opinions, principles, senti"ments, and passions, of their elders, as well as cre"dit their testimony: Nor is this more strange, "than that a hammer should make an impression " on clay.

"Sect. 2. No man can have any other experience "but his own. The experience of others becomes

"his only by the credit which he gives to their

66

testimony; which proceeds from his own experi"ence of human nature.

"Sect. 3. There is no contradiction in saying, "that all the testimony which ever was really given 66 for any miracle, or ever will be given, is a subject " of derision: And yet forming a fiction or supposi"tion of a testimony for a particular miracle, which

66

might not only merit attention, but amount to a "full proof of it. For instance, the absence of the

86

sun during 48 hours: But reasonable men would

only conclude from this fact, that the machine of "the globe was disordered during the time.

66

66

Page 28. I find no difficulty to explain my 'meaning, and yet shall not probably do it in any "future edition. The proof against a miracle, as "it is founded on invariable experience, is of that

66

species or kind of proof, which is full and certain, "when taken alone, because it implies no doubt, as "is the case with all probabilities; but there are

66

degrees of this species, and when a weaker proof

is opposed to a stronger it is overcome.

66

Page 29. There is very little more delicacy "in telling a man he speaks nonsense by implica❝tion than in saying so directly.