Any wary sceptic, indeed, might have found much ground for doubt in the very accounts themselves that were given of the conflagration.  For, the Russians have always denied that they burned it; and the French equally disclaimed the act.  Each of the two parties between whom the accusation lay, strenuously denied it.  And it must be acknowledged that each had very strong presumptions of innocence to urge.  It was certainly most unlikely that the Russians should themselves destroy their ancient and venerable capital; and that, too, when they were boasting of having just gained a great victory at Borodino over an army which, therefore, they might hope to defeat again, and to drive out of their city.  And it was no less unlikely that the French should burn down a city of which they had possession, and which afforded shelter and refreshment to their troops.  This would have been one of the most improbable circumstances of that most improbable (supposed) campaign.  To add to the marvel, we are told that the French army nevertheless waited for five weeks, without any object, amid the ashes of this destroyed city, just at the approach, of winter, and as if on purpose to be overtaken and destroyed by snows and frost!

However, all the difficulties of the question whether any of these things took place at all, were by most persons overlooked, because the question itself never occurred to them, in their eagerness to decide who it was that burned the city.  And at length it comes out that the answer is, NOBODY!

THE END.

POSTSCRIPT.

With respect to the foregoing arguments, it has been asserted (though without even any attempt at proof) that they go to prove that the Bible-narratives contain nothing more miraculous than the received accounts of Napoleon Buonaparte.  And this is indeed true, if we use the word “miraculous” in the very unusual sense in which Hume (as is pointed out in the foregoing pages) has employed it; to signify simply “improbable;” an abuse of language on which his argument mainly depends.

It is indeed shown, that there are at least as many and as great improbabilities in the history of Buonaparte as in any of the Scripture-narratives; and that as plausible objections,—­if not more so,—­may be brought against the one history as the other.

But taking words in their ordinary, established sense, the assertion is manifestly the opposite of the truth.  For, any one who does,—­in spite of all the improbabilities,—­believe the truth of both histories, is, evidently, a believer in miracles; since he believes two narratives, one of which is not miraculous, while the other is.  The history of Buonaparte contains—­though much that is very improbable—­nothing that is to be called, according to the established use of language, miraculous.  And the Scriptures contain, as an essential part of their narrative, Miracles, properly so called.