6

have disputed, although the authority had been less than that of Tacitus. Indeed the historian does not say directly, whether he believes the miracle or not; but by his manner of telling it, he plainly insinuates, that he thought it ridiculous. In introducing it, he intimates the utility of such reports to the Emperor's cause. By which,' says he, the 'favour of Heaven, and the appointment of the gods, might be urged in support of his title *.' When he names the god Serapis, as warning the blind man to recur to Vespasian, he adds, in evident contempt and derision of his godship, Who is adored above all others by the Egyptians, a

6

people addicted to superstition †.' Again he speaks of the Emperor, as induced to hope for success, by the persuasive tongues of flatterers . A serious believer of the miracle would hardly have used such a style in relating it. But to what purpose did he then relate it? The answer is easy. Nothing could be more characteristic of the Emperor, or could better show the arts he had recourse to, and the hold which flattery had of him; nothing could be more characteristic of the Alexandrians, the people amongst whom the miracle is said to have been wrought.

* Queis coelestis favor, et quaedam in Vespasianum inclinatio numinum ostenderetur.

+ Quem dedita superstitionibus gens ante alios colit.

Vocibus adulantium in spem induci.

sanction of the gods, than the prince of whom he is speaking. This, doubtless, he thought the more necessary in his case, as he was of an obscure family, and nowise related to any of his predecessors. How fond he was of pleading visions, and presages, and auguries, in his favour, all the world knows *.

6

6

No.

The author adds, The historian, a contemporary writer, noted for candour and veracity, and withal the greatest and most penetrating genius perhaps of all antiquity, and so free from any tendency to superstition and credulity, that he even lies under the contrary imputation of atheism and profaneness.' This would say a great deal, if the character of the historian were of any moment in the question. Doth Tacitus pretend that he was himself a witness of the miracle? Doth he mention it as a thing which he believes? No. In either case I acknowledge, that the reputation of the relater for candour and penetration, must have added weight to the relation, whether considered as his testimony, or barely as his opinion. But is it fair to plead the veracity of the writer in proof of every popular rumour mentioned by him? His veracity is only concerned to satisfy us, that it was actually reported, as he relates; or that the attempt was made, and the miracle pretended; a point which, I presume, nobody would

* Auctoritas, et quasi majestas quaedam, ut scilicet inopinato et adhuc novo principi deerat, haec quoque accessit. SUETON.

of Vespasian, ALEXANDRIA having been the first city of note that publicly declared for him. Was it then matter of surprise, that a story, which at once soothed the superstition of the populace, and favoured their political schemes, should gain ground among them? Can we justly wonder, that the wiser few, who were not deceived, should connive at, or even contribute to promote a deceit, which was highly useful to the cause wherein themselves were embarked, and at the same time highly grateful to the many? Lastly, can we be surprised that any, who, for seven and twenty years, had, from motives of interest and ambition, and popularity, propagated a falsehood, should not afterwards be willing to expose themselves as liars?

The author finishes the story thus:

To which

' if we add the public nature of the facts related, • it will appear, that no evidence can well be sup'posed stronger for so gross and so palpable a false'hood.' As to the nature of the facts, we are told by Tacitus, that when Vespasian consulted the physicians, whether such maladies were curable by human art, they declared *, that in the one the power of sight was not extinct, but would return,

6

were the obstacles removed; that in the other, the joints had suffered some dislocation, which by a salutary pressure might be redressed.' From this

* Huic non exesam vim luminis, et redituram, si pellerentur obstantia: illi elapsos in pravum artus, si salubris vis adhibeatur, posse integrari.

L

account we are naturally led to conclude, that the disorders were not so conspicuous, but that either they might have been feigned, where they were not; or that cures might have been pretended, where none were performed. I think it is even a further presumption of the truth of this conclusion, that Suetonius, the only other Roman historian who mentions the miracle (I know not how he hath been overlooked by Mr Hume), differs from Tacitus, in the account he gives of the lameness. The one represents it as being in the hand, the other as in the leg*..

There are other circumstances regarding this story, on which I might make some remarks; but shall forbear, as it is impossible to enter into a minute discussion of particulars, that appear but trivial, when considered severally, without growing tiresome to the bulk of readers. I shall therefore only subjoin these simple questions. First, What emperor or other potentate was flattered in his dignity and pretensions by the miracles of our Lord? What eminent personage found himself interested to support, by his authority and influence, the credit of these miracles? Again, What popular superstition or general and rooted prejudices were they calculated to confirm? These two

* Manum aeger. TACITUS. Debili crure. SUETONIUS. Mr Hume, in the last edition of the Essay, mentions Suetonius, but takes no notice of this difference between his account and that of Tacitus.

circumstances, were there no other, make the greatest odds imaginable betwixt the miracles of VESPASIAN and those of JESUS CHRIST.

So much for the PAGAN miracles mentioned by the author.

SECTION V.

Examination of the POPISH Miracles mentioned by Mr Hume.

THE author soon descends from ancient to modern times, and leaving Paganism, recurs to Popery, a much more fruitful source of lying wonders.

THE first of this kind he takes notice of*, is a Spanish miracle recorded in the memoirs of Cardinal de Retz. The story, he says, is very memorable, and may well deserve our consideration. • When that intriguing politician fled into Spain, to avoid the persecution of his enemies, he passed through Saragossa, the capital of Arragon; where ' he was shown, in the cathedral church, a man who