<\/p>
Hume thought his arguments against miracles applied to prophecy as well. \u00a0Miracles cannot serve as proof of the truth of Christianity because miracles violate natural law and because our knowledge of them rests on unreliable testimony rather than direct observation. \u00a0So too prophecy: \u201cWhat we have said of miracles may be applied, without any variation, to\u00a0prophecies; and indeed, all prophecies are real miracles, and as such only, can be\u00a0admitted as proofs of any revelation.\u201d <\/p>\n
In a 1999 article in the Journal of the History of Ideas <\/em> , however, Peter Harrison points out that Hume\u2019s earliest Christian opponents recognized the flaw in extending Hume\u2019s argument from miracles to prophecy. <\/p>\n The evidentiary basis of believe in miracles and belief in prophecy were quite different. \u00a0Robert Boyle said that \u201cthe manifest proofs of prediction continue still\u201d and thus, unlike ancient miracles, they \u201care as visible as the extent of the Christian religion.\u201d <\/p>\n Samuel Clarke argued that \u201cThe Miracles which our Savior worked,\u00a0were to his first Disciples, who were Eye-witnesses of them, a complete Demonstration of the Truth of his Doctrine,\u201d but that is not the case with those who followed. \u00a0He admitted that \u201cthe Miracles of Christ, and particularly of his Resurrection,\u00a0which was the greatest of all, is not such an ocular demonstration to\u00a0After-generations.\u201d \u00a0Yet, he went on \u201cin some respects, we\u00a0have the advantage even of Them; We have the Examination of many\u00a0Ages, the Answers to the Objections of all sorts of Adversaries, the\u00a0Judgment of the wisest and most considerate Men that have gone before\u00a0us, and the Evidence of several of the Lord\u2019s prophecies since that time\u00a0fulfilled.\u201d <\/p>\n The distinction was widely acknowledged. \u00a0When Samuel Johnson noted that he considered Hume\u2019s arguments against miracles substantially correct, Boswell questioned him: \u201cTalking of Dr. Johnson\u2019s unwillingness to believe extraordinary things,\u00a0I ventured to say, \u2018Sir, you come near Hume\u2019s argument against miracles,\u00a0That it is more probable certain witnesses should lie, or be mistaken,\u00a0than that they should happen.\u2019 \u00a0JOHNSON. \u2018Why, Sir, Hume, taking\u00a0the propositions imply, is right. But the Christian revelation is not proved\u00a0by the miracles alone, but as connected with prophecies.\u201d <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Hume thought his arguments against miracles applied to prophecy as well. \u00a0Miracles cannot serve as proof of the truth of Christianity because miracles violate natural law and because our knowledge of them rests on unreliable testimony rather than direct observation. \u00a0So too prophecy: \u201cWhat we have said of miracles may be applied, without any variation, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n