Questions on Chapter 10.

would be full proof of a cheat.” Wonderful logic! The world has long been imposed upon by falsehoods; therefore nothing should be received as true, however it may be demonstrated! The community has long been humbugged by empiricism and quackery in medicine; therefore every principle of the science should be rejected, without examination! The country has been long flooded with counterfeit currency; therefore no coin should be received as genuine, however indubitable the evidence! The world has long been “imposed upon by ridiculous stories” of false miracles, destitute of real proof; therefore men of sense should “reject, without examination,” all accounts of genuine miracles, however well authenticated, by the most indubitable evidence! Had Newton or Locke, Bacon or Boyle, Samuel Clarke or Richard Watson, or any of the renowned defenders of Christianity, perpetrated so glaring an outrage upon sound reasoning as this, they never could have gained the reputation they have secured as sound philosophers and able logicians; but this champion of infidelity may blunder on with a volume of sophistry, and coolly enunciate the most palpable absurdities and contradictions, yet, since he has boasted that he has set forth an argument that “will be useful to overthrow miracles as long as the world endures,” his modern satellites unblushingly laud him to the skies as a paragon of perfection, both as to the acuteness of his perception, and the soundness of his logic! Have these wiseacres of the present day — who flaunt themselves as disciples of Hume — discernment to appreciate the logic and consistency of their renowned master? If they have, they will blush with shame and abandon the cause of infidelity, or seek some other leader; if they have not, they should be left to “glory in their shame”! To combine so much sophistry in so brief an argument as that of Hume against miracles, required an ingenuity for which it is difficult to find a parallel, except in the degree of assurance with which the renowned sophism has been paraded. QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 10.

QUESTION 1. What is the substance of Hume’s argument against miracles?

2. What is the first-named objection to his argument?

3. Does his argument bear equally against miracles, whether witnessed by our own senses, or confirmed by testimony?

4. What is the next objection to his argument?

5. How may it be shown that his argument would disprove every thing new and marvelous?

6. Wherein consists the ambiguity of the term experience, as used by Hume?

7. How are the laws of nature properly defined?

8. In what sense are miracles contrary to the laws of nature?

9. What is the verdict of common sense as to the character of the evidence of miracles?

10. What are the two capital flaws in Hume’s argument?

11. How may it be shown that his argument balances experience against inexperience?

12. How is it shown that Mr. Hume absurdly blends, together good and bad testimony?

13. If Mr. Hume perceived this flaw in his argument, what must we infer? What, if he did not?

14. Wherein was Hume glaringly inconsistent with himself?