e or place; and, if it
is undeniable that evidence of so complete and weighty a character is
needed, at the present time, for the establishment of the occurrence of
such a wonder as that supposed, it has always been needful. Those who
study the extant records of miracles with due attention will judge for
themselves how far it has ever been supplied.

FOOTNOTE:

[27] Report of Captain Broadfoot, garrison engineer, quoted in Kaye's
_Afghanistan_.

CHAPTER VIII.

THEISM; EVOLUTION OF THEOLOGY.

Hume seems to have had but two hearty dislikes: the one to the English
nation, and the other to all the professors of dogmatic theology. The
one aversion he vented only privately to his friends; but, if he is ever
bitter in his public utterances, it is against priests[28] in general
and theological enthusiasts and fanatics in particular; if he ever seems
insincere, it is when he wishes to insult theologians by a parade of
sarcastic respect. One need go no further than the peroration of the
_Essay on Miracles_ for a characteristic illustration.

"I am the better pleased with the method of reasoning here
delivered, as I think it may serve to confound those dangerous
friends and disguised enemies to the _Christian religion_ who have
undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason. Our
most holy religion is founded on _Faith_, not on reason, and it is
a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is by
no means fitted to endure. ... the Christian religion not only was
at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be
believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason is
insufficient to convince us of its veracity: And whoever is moved
by _Faith_ to assent to it, is conscious of a continual miracle in
his own person, which subverts all the principles of his
understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is
most contrary to custom and experience."--(IV. pp. 153, 154.)

It is obvious that, here and elsewhere, Hume, adopting a popular
confusion of ideas, uses religion as the equivalent of dogmatic
theology; and, therefore, he says, with perfect justice, that "religion
is nothing but a species of philosophy" (iv. p. 171). Here no doubt lies
the root of his antagonism. The quarrels of theologians and philosophers
have not been about religion, but about philosophy; and philosophers not
unfrequently