miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever
happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man,
seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of
death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently
observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to
life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There
must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event,
otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform
experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full _proof_,
from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor
can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by
an opposite proof, which is superior.[22]

[22] Sometimes an event may not, _in itself_, seem to be
contrary to the laws of nature, and yet, if it were real, it
might, by reason of some circumstances, be denominated a
miracle; because, in _fact_, it is contrary to these laws. Thus
if a person, claiming a divine authority, should command a sick
person to be well, a healthful man to fall down dead, the
clouds to pour rain, the winds to blow, in short, should order
many natural events, which immediately follow upon his command;
these might justly be esteemed miracles, because they are
really, in this case, contrary to the laws of nature. For if
any suspicion remain, that the event and command concurred by
accident, there is no miracle and no transgression of the laws
of nature. If this suspicion be removed, there is evidently a
miracle, and a transgression of these laws; because nothing can
be more contrary to nature than that the voice or command of a
man should have such an influence. A miracle may be accurately
defined, _a transgression of a law of nature by a particular