An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding - David Hume (free ereaders .txt) 📗

evidence, and may double our surprise on this occasion, is,

that the cardinal himself, who relates the story, seems not to give any

credit to it, and consequently cannot be suspected of any concurrence in

the holy fraud. He considered justly, that it was not requisite, in

order to reject a fact of this nature, to be able accurately to disprove

the testimony, and to trace its falsehood, through all the circumstances

of knavery and credulity which produced it. He knew, that, as this was

commonly altogether impossible at any small distance of time and place;

so was it extremely difficult, even where one was immediately present,

by reason of the bigotry, ignorance, cunning, and roguery of a great

part of mankind. He therefore concluded, like a just reasoner, that such

an evidence carried falsehood upon the very face of it, and that a

miracle, supported by any human testimony, was more properly a subject

of derision than of argument.

 

There surely never was a greater number of miracles ascribed to one

person, than those, which were lately said to have been wrought in

France upon the tomb of Abb� Paris, the famous Jansenist, with whose

sanctity the people were so long deluded. The curing of the sick, giving

hearing to the deaf, and sight to the blind, were every where talked of

as the usual effects of that holy sepulchre. But what is more

extraordinary; many of the miracles were immediately proved upon the

spot, before judges of unquestioned integrity, attested by witnesses of

credit and distinction, in a learned age, and on the most eminent

theatre that is now in the world. Nor is this all: a relation of them

was published and dispersed every where; nor were the Jesuits, though

a learned body, supported by the civil magistrate, and determined

enemies to those opinions, in whose favour the miracles were said to

have been wrought, ever able distinctly to refute or detect them[24].

Where shall we find such a number of circumstances, agreeing to the

corroboration of one fact? And what have we to oppose to such a cloud of

witnesses, but the absolute impossibility or miraculous nature of the

events, which they relate? And this surely, in the eyes of all

reasonable people, will alone be regarded as a sufficient refutation.

 

[24] This book was writ by Mons. Montgeron, counsellor or judge

of the parliament of Paris, a man of figure and character, who

was also a martyr to the cause, and is now said to be somewhere

in a dungeon on account of his book.

 

There is another book in three volumes (called _Recueil des

Miracles de l’Abb�_ Paris) giving an account of many of these

miracles, and accompanied with prefatory discourses, which are

very well written. There runs, however, through the whole of

these a ridiculous comparison between the miracles of our

Saviour and those of the Abb�; wherein it is asserted, that the

evidence for the latter is equal to that for the former: As if

the testimony of men could ever be put in the balance with that

of God himself, who conducted the pen of the inspired writers.

If these writers, indeed, were to be considered merely as human

testimony, the French author is very moderate in his

comparison; since he might, with some appearance of reason,

pretend, that the Jansenist miracles much surpass the other in

evidence and authority. The following circumstances are drawn

from authentic papers, inserted in the above-mentioned book.

 

Many of the miracles of Abb� Paris were proved immediately by

witnesses before the officiality or bishop’s court at Paris,

under the eye of cardinal Noailles, whose character for

integrity and capacity was never contested even by his enemies.

 

His successor in the archbishopric was an enemy to the

Jansenists, and for that reason promoted to the see by the

court. Yet 22 rectors or cur�s of Paris, with infinite

earnestness, press him to examine those miracles, which they

assert to be known to the whole world, and undisputably

certain: But he wisely forbore.

 

The Molinist party had tried to discredit these miracles in one

instance, that of Mademoiselle le Franc. But, besides that

their proceedings were in many respects the most irregular in

the world, particularly in citing only a few of the Jansenist

witnesses, whom they tampered with: Besides this, I say, they

soon found themselves overwhelmed by a cloud of new witnesses,

one hundred and twenty in number, most of them persons of

credit and substance in Paris, who gave oath for the miracle.

This was accompanied with a solemn and earnest appeal to the

parliament. But the parliament were forbidden by authority to

meddle in the affair. It was at last observed, that where men

are heated by zeal and enthusiasm, there is no degree of human

testimony so strong as may not be procured for the greatest

absurdity: And those who will be so silly as to examine the

affair by that medium, and seek particular flaws in the

testimony, are almost sure to be confounded. It must be a

miserable imposture, indeed, that does not prevail in

that contest.

 

All who have been in France about that time have heard of the

reputation of Mons. Heraut, the lieutenant de Police, whose

vigilance, penetration, activity, and extensive intelligence

have been much talked of. This magistrate, who by the nature of

his office is almost absolute, was vested with full powers, on

purpose to suppress or discredit these miracles; and he

frequently seized immediately, and examined the witnesses and

subjects of them: But never could reach any thing satisfactory

against them.

 

In the case of Mademoiselle Thibaut he sent the famous De Sylva

to examine her; whose evidence is very curious. The physician

declares, that it was impossible she could have been so ill as

was proved by witnesses; because it was impossible she could,

in so short a time, have recovered so perfectly as he found

her. He reasoned, like a man of sense, from natural causes; but

the opposite party told him, that the whole was a miracle, and

that his evidence was the very best proof of it.

 

The Molinists were in a sad dilemma. They durst not assert the

absolute insufficiency of human evidence, to prove a miracle.

They were obliged to say, that these miracles were wrought by

witchcraft and the devil. But they were told, that this was the

resource of the Jews of old.

 

No Jansenist was ever embarrassed to account for the cessation

of the miracles, when the church-yard was shut up by the king’s

edict. It was the touch of the tomb, which produced these

extraordinary effects; and when no one could approach the tomb,

no effects could be expected. God, indeed, could have thrown

down the walls in a moment; but he is master of his own graces

and works, and it belongs not to us to account for them. He did

not throw down the walls of every city like those of Jericho,

on the sounding of the rams horns, nor break up the prison of

every apostle, like that of St. Paul.

 

No less a man, than the Due de Chatillon, a duke and peer of

France, of the highest rank and family, gives evidence of a

miraculous cure, performed upon a servant of his, who had lived

several years in his house with a visible and palpable

infirmity. I shall conclude with observing, that no clergy are

more celebrated for strictness of life and manners than the

secular clergy of France, particularly the rectors or cur�s of

Paris, who bear testimony to these impostures. The learning,

genius, and probity of the gentlemen, and the austerity of the

nuns of Port-Royal, have been much celebrated all over Europe.

Yet they all give evidence for a miracle, wrought on the niece

of the famous Pascal, whose sanctity of life, as well as

extraordinary capacity, is well known. The famous Racine gives

an account of this miracle in his famous history of Port-Royal,

and fortifies it with all the proofs, which a multitude of

nuns, priests, physicians, and men of the world, all of them of

undoubted credit, could bestow upon it. Several men of letters,

particularly the bishop of Tournay, thought this miracle so

certain, as to employ it in the refutation of atheists and

free-thinkers. The queen-regent of France, who was extremely

prejudiced against the Port-Royal, sent her own physician to

examine the miracle, who returned an absolute convert. In

short, the supernatural cure was so uncontestable, that it

saved, for a time, that famous monastery from the ruin with

which it was threatened by the Jesuits. Had it been a cheat, it

had certainly been detected by such sagacious and powerful

antagonists, and must have hastened the ruin of the contrivers.

Our divines, who can build up a formidable castle from such

despicable materials; what a prodigious fabric could they have

reared from these and many other circumstances, which I have

not mentioned! How often would the great names of Pascal,

Racine, Amaud, Nicole, have resounded in our ears? But if they

be wise, they had better adopt the miracle, as being more

worth, a thousand times, than all the rest of the collection.

Besides, it may serve very much to their purpose. For that

miracle was really performed by the touch of an authentic holy

prickle of the holy thorn, which composed the holy crown,

which, &c.

 

97. Is the consequence just, because some human testimony has the utmost

force and authority in some cases, when it relates the battle of

Philippi or Pharsalia for instance; that therefore all kinds of

testimony must, in all cases, have equal force and authority? Suppose

that the Caesarean and Pompeian factions had, each of them, claimed the

victory in these battles, and that the historians of each party had

uniformly ascribed the advantage to their own side; how could mankind,

at this distance, have been able to determine between them? The

contrariety is equally strong between the miracles related by Herodotus

or Plutarch, and those delivered by Mariana, Bede, or any monkish

historian.

 

The wise lend a very academic faith to every report which favours the

passion of the reporter; whether it magnifies his country, his family,

or himself, or in any other way strikes in with his natural inclinations

and propensities. But what greater temptation than to appear a

missionary, a prophet, an ambassador from heaven? Who would not

encounter many dangers and difficulties, in order to attain so sublime a

character? Or if, by the help of vanity and a heated imagination, a man

has first made a convert of himself, and entered seriously into the

delusion; who ever scruples to make use of pious frauds, in support of

so holy and meritorious a cause?

 

The smallest spark may here kindle into the greatest flame; because the

materials are always prepared for it. The avidum genus auricularum[25],

the gazing populace, receive greedily, without examination, whatever

sooths superstition, and promotes wonder.

 

[25] Lucret.

 

How many stories of this nature have, in all ages, been detected and

exploded in their infancy? How many more have been celebrated for a

time, and have afterwards sunk into neglect and oblivion? Where such

reports, therefore, fly about, the solution of the phenomenon is

obvious; and we judge in conformity to regular experience and

observation, when we account for it by the known and natural principles

of credulity and delusion. And shall we, rather than have a recourse to

so natural a solution, allow of a miraculous violation of the most

established laws of nature?

 

I need not mention the difficulty of detecting a falsehood in any

private or even public history, at the place, where it is said to

happen; much more when the scene is removed to ever so small a distance.

Even