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 everywhere; 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.  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.’

Thus Hume, first denies the existence of such evidence, given in such circumstances as he demands, and then he produces an example of that very kind of evidence.  Having done this, he abandons (as Mr. Wallace observes) his original assertion that the evidence does not exist, and takes refuge in alleging ‘the absolute impossibility’ of the events which the evidence supports.  Thus Hume poses as a perfect judge of the possible, in a kind of omniscience.  He takes his stand on the uniformity of all experience that is not hostile to his idea of the possible, and dismisses all testimony to other experience, even when it reaches his standard of evidence.  He is remote indeed from Virchow’s position ’that what we call the laws of nature must vary according to our frequent new experiences.’[3] In his note, Hume buttresses and confirms his evidence for the Jansenist miracles.  They have even a martyr, M. Montgeron, who wrote an account of the events, and, says Hume lightly, ’is now said to be somewhere in a dungeon on account of his book.’  ’Many of the miracles of the Abbe Paris were proved immediately by witnesses before the Bishop’s court at Paris, under the eye of Cardinal Noailles....’  ’His successor was an enemy to the Jansenists, yet twenty-two cures of Paris ... pressed him to examine these miracles ... But he wisely forbore.’  Hume adds his testimony to the character of these cures.  Thus it is wisdom, according to Hume, to dismiss the most public and well-attested ‘miracles’ without examination.  This is experimental science of an odd kind.

The phenomena were cases of healing, many of them surprising, of cataleptic rigidity, and of insensibility to pain, among visitors to the tomb of the Abbe Paris (1731).  Had the cases been judicially examined (all medical evidence was in their favour), and had they been proved false, the cause of Hume would have profited enormously.  A strong presumption would have been raised against the miracles of Christianity.  But Hume applauds the wisdom of not giving his own theory this chance of a triumph.  The cataleptic