Sect. VIII. Of Liberty and Necessity

Part I.

63. This has been the 事例／患者 in the long 論争d question 関心ing liberty and necessity; and to so remarkable a degree that, if I be not much mistaken, we shall find, that all mankind, both learned and ignorant, have always been of the same opinion with regard to this 支配する, and that a few intelligible 鮮明度／定義s would すぐに have put an end to the whole 論争. I own that this 論争 has been so much canvassed on all 手渡すs, and has led philosophers into such a 迷宮／迷路 of obscure sophistry, that it is no wonder, if a sensible reader indulge his 緩和する so far as to turn a deaf ear to the 提案 of such a question, from which he can 推定する／予想する neither 指示／教授／教育 or entertainment. But the 明言する／公表する of the argument here 提案するd may, perhaps, serve to 新たにする his attention; as it has more novelty, 約束s at least some 決定／判定勝ち（する） of the 論争, and will not much 乱す his 緩和する by any intricate or obscure 推論する／理由ing.

I hope, therefore, to make it appear that all men have ever agreed in the doctrine both of necessity and of liberty, によれば any reasonable sense, which can be put on these 条件; and that the whole 論争 has hitherto turned 単に upon words. We shall begin with 診察するing the doctrine of necessity.

64. It is universally 許すd that 事柄, in all its 操作／手術s, is actuated by a necessary 軍隊, and that every natural 影響 is so 正確に 決定するd by the energy of its 原因（となる） that no other 影響, in such particular circumstances, could かもしれない have resulted from it. The degree and direction of every 動議 is, by the 法律s of nature, 定める／命ずるd with such exactness that a living creature may as soon arise from the shock of two 団体／死体s in 動議 in any other degree or direction than what is 現実に produced by it. Would we, therefore, form a just and 正確な idea of necessity, we must consider whence that idea arises when we 適用する it to the 操作／手術 of 団体／死体s.

It seems evident that, if all the scenes of nature were continually 転換d in such a manner that no two events bore any resemblance to each other, but every 反対する was 完全に new, without any similitude to whatever had been seen before, we should never, in that 事例／患者, have 達成するd the least idea of necessity, or of a connexion の中で these 反対するs. We might say, upon such a supposition, that one 反対する or event has followed another; not that one was produced by the other. The relation of 原因（となる） and 影響 must be utterly unknown to mankind. Inference and 推論する／理由ing 関心ing the 操作／手術s of nature would, from that moment, be at an end; and the memory and senses remain the only canals, by which the knowledge of any real 存在 could かもしれない have 接近 to the mind. Our idea, therefore, of necessity and causation arises 完全に from the uniformity observable in the 操作／手術s of nature, where 類似の 反対するs are 絶えず conjoined together, and the mind is 決定するd by custom to infer the one from the 外見 of the other. These two circumstances form the whole of that necessity, which we ascribe to 事柄. Beyond the constant 合同 of 類似の 反対するs, and the consequent inference from one to the other, we have no notion of any necessity or connexion.

If it appear, therefore, that all mankind have ever 許すd, without any 疑問 or hesitation, that these two circumstances take place in the voluntary 活動／戦闘s of men, and in the 操作／手術s of mind; it must follow, that all mankind have ever agreed in the doctrine of necessity, and that they have hitherto 論争d, 単に for not understanding each other.

65. As to the first circumstance, the constant and 正規の／正選手 合同 of 類似の events, we may かもしれない 満足させる ourselves by the に引き続いて considerations. It is universally 定評のある that there is a 広大な／多数の／重要な uniformity の中で the 活動／戦闘s of men, in all nations and ages, and that human nature remains still the same, in its 原則s and 操作／手術s. The same 動機s always produce the same 活動／戦闘s: The same events follow from the same 原因（となる）s. Ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit: these passions, mixed in さまざまな degrees, and 分配するd through society, have been, from the beginning of the world, and still are, the source of all the 活動／戦闘s and 企業s, which have ever been 観察するd の中で mankind. Would you know the 感情s, inclinations, and course of life of the Greeks and Romans? 熟考する／考慮する 井戸／弁護士席 the temper and 活動／戦闘s of the French and English: You cannot be much mistaken in transferring to the former most of the 観察s which you have made with regard to the latter. Mankind are so much the same, in all times and places, that history 知らせるs us of nothing new or strange in this particular. Its 長，指導者 use is only to discover the constant and 全世界の／万国共通の 原則s of human nature, by showing men in all varieties of circumstances and 状況／情勢s, and furnishing us with 構成要素s from which we may form our 観察s and become 熟知させるd with the 正規の／正選手 springs of human 活動／戦闘 and behaviour. These 記録，記録的な／記録するs of wars, intrigues, 派閥s, and 革命s, are so many collections of 実験s, by which the 政治家，政治屋 or moral philosopher 直す／買収する，八百長をするs the 原則s of his science, in the same manner as the 内科医 or natural philosopher becomes 熟知させるd with the nature of 工場／植物s, minerals, and other 外部の 反対するs, by the 実験s which he forms 関心ing them. Nor are the earth, water, and other elements, 診察するd by Aristotle, and Hippocrates, more like to those which at 現在の 嘘（をつく） under our 観察 than the men 述べるd by Polybius and Tacit us are to those who now 治める／統治する the world.

Should a traveller, returning from a far country, bring us an account of men, wholly different from any with whom we were ever 熟知させるd; men, who were 完全に divested of avarice, ambition, or 復讐; who knew no 楽しみ but friendship, generosity, and public spirit; we should すぐに, from these circumstances, （悪事，秘密などを）発見する the falsehood, and 証明する him a liar, with the same certainty as if he had stuffed his narration with stories of centaurs and dragons, 奇蹟s and prodigies. And if we would 爆発する any 偽造 in history, we cannot make use of a more 納得させるing argument, than to 証明する, that the 活動／戦闘s ascribed to any person are 直接／まっすぐに contrary to the course of nature, and that no human 動機s, in such circumstances, could ever induce him to such a 行為／行う. The veracity of Quintus Curtius is as much to be 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑うd when he 述べるs the supernatural courage of Alexander, by which he was hurried on singly to attack multitudes, as when he 述べるs his supernatural 軍隊 and activity, by which he was able to resist them. So readily and universally do we 認める a uniformity in human 動機s and 活動／戦闘s 同様に as in the 操作／手術s of 団体／死体.

Hence likewise the 利益 of that experience, acquired by long life and a variety of 商売／仕事 and company, ーするために 教える us in the 原則s of human nature, and 規制する our 未来 行為／行う, 同様に as 憶測. By means of this guide, we 開始する up to the knowledge of men's inclinations and 動機s, from their 活動／戦闘s, 表現s, and even gestures; and again descend to the 解釈／通訳 of their 活動／戦闘s from our knowledge of their 動機s and inclinations. The general 観察s treasured up by a course of experience, give us the 手がかり（を与える） of human nature, and teach us to unravel all its intricacies. Pretexts and 外見s no longer deceive us. Public 宣言s pass for the specious colouring of a 原因（となる）. And though virtue and honour be 許すd their proper 負わせる and 当局, that perfect disinterestedness, so often pretended to, is never 推定する／予想するd in multitudes and parties; seldom in their leaders; and scarcely even in individuals of any 階級 or 駅／配置する. But were there no uniformity in human 活動／戦闘s, and were every 実験 which we could form of this 肉親，親類d 不規律な and anomalous, it were impossible to collect any general 観察s 関心ing mankind; and no experience, however 正確に digested by reflection, would ever serve to any 目的. Why is the 老年の husband-man more skilful in his calling than the young beginner but because there is a 確かな uniformity in the 操作／手術 of the sun, rain, and earth に向かって the 生産／産物 of vegetables; and experience teaches the old practitioner the 支配するs by which this 操作／手術 is 治める／統治するd and directed.

66. We must not, however, 推定する／予想する that this uniformity of human 活動／戦闘s should be carried to such a length as that all men, in the same circumstances, will always 行為／法令／行動する 正確に in the same manner, without making any allowance for the 多様制 of characters, prejudices, and opinions. Such a uniformity in every particular, is 設立する in no part of nature. On the contrary, from 観察するing the variety of 行為／行う in different men, we are enabled to form a greater variety of maxims, which still suppose a degree of uniformity and regularity.

Are the manners of men different in different ages and countries? We learn thence the 広大な／多数の／重要な 軍隊 of custom and education, which mould the human mind from its 幼少／幼藍期 and form it into a 直す／買収する，八百長をするd and 設立するd character. Is the behaviour and 行為／行う of the one sex very unlike that of the other? Is it thence we become 熟知させるd with the different characters which nature has impressed upon the sexes, and which she 保存するs with constancy and regularity? Are the 活動／戦闘s of the same person much diversified in the different periods of his life, from 幼少／幼藍期 to old age? This affords room for many general 観察s 関心ing the 漸進的な change of our 感情s and inclinations, and the different maxims which 勝つ／広く一帯に広がる in the different ages of human creatures. Even the characters, which are peculiar to each individual, have a uniformity in their 影響（力）; さもなければ our 知識 with the persons and our 観察 of their 行為／行う could never teach us their dispositions, or serve to direct our behaviour with regard to them.

67. I 認める it possible to find some 活動／戦闘s, which seem to have no 正規の／正選手 connexion with any known 動機s, and are exceptions to all the 対策 of 行為／行う which have ever been 設立するd for the 政府 of men. But if we would willingly know what 裁判／判断 should be formed of such 不規律な and 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の 活動／戦闘s, we may consider the 感情s 一般的に entertained with regard to those 不規律な events which appear in the course of nature, and the 操作／手術s of 外部の 反対するs. All 原因（となる）s are not conjoined to their usual 影響s with like uniformity. An artificer, who 扱うs only dead 事柄, may be disappointed of his 目的（とする）, 同様に as the 政治家，政治屋, who directs the 行為／行う of sensible and intelligent スパイ／執行官s.

The vulgar, who take things によれば their first 外見, せいにする the 不確定 of events to such an 不確定 in the 原因（となる）s as makes the latter often fail of their usual 影響（力）; though they 会合，会う with no 妨害 in their 操作／手術. But philosophers, 観察するing that, almost in every part of nature, there is 含む／封じ込めるd a 広大な variety of springs and 原則s, which are hid, by 推論する／理由 of their minuteness or remoteness, find, that it is at least possible the contrariety of events may not proceed from any contingency in the 原因（となる）, but from the secret 操作／手術 of contrary 原因（となる）s. This 可能性 is 変えるd into certainty by さらに先に 観察, when they 発言／述べる that, upon an exact scrutiny, a contrariety of 影響s always betrays a contrariety of 原因（となる）s, and proceeds from their 相互の 対立. A 小作農民 can give no better 推論する／理由 for the stopping of any clock or watch than to say that it does not 一般的に go 権利: But an artist easily perceives that the same 軍隊 in the spring or pendulum has always the same 影響（力） on the wheels; but fails of its usual 影響, perhaps by 推論する／理由 of a 穀物 of dust, which puts a stop to the whole movement. From the 観察 of several 平行の instances, philosophers form a maxim that the connexion between all 原因（となる）s and 影響s is 平等に necessary, and that its seeming 不確定 in some instances proceeds from the secret 対立 of contrary 原因（となる）s.

Thus, for instance, in the human 団体／死体, when the usual symptoms of health or sickness disappoint our 期待; when 薬／医学s operate not with their wonted 力／強力にするs; when 不規律な events follow from any particular 原因（となる）; the philosopher and 内科医 are not surprised at the 事柄, nor are ever tempted to 否定する, in general, the necessity and uniformity of those 原則s by which the animal economy is 行為／行うd. They know that a human 団体／死体 is a mighty 複雑にするd machine: That many secret 力／強力にするs lurk in it, which are altogether beyond our comprehension: That to us it must often appear very uncertain in its 操作／手術s: And that therefore the 不規律な events, which outwardly discover themselves, can be no proof that the 法律s of nature are not 観察するd with the greatest regularity in its 内部の 操作／手術s and 政府.

68. The philosopher, if he be 一貫した, must 適用する the same 推論する／理由ing to the 活動／戦闘s and volitions of intelligent スパイ／執行官s. The most 不規律な and 予期しない 決意／決議s of men may frequently be accounted for by those who know every particular circumstance of their character and 状況／情勢. A person of an 強いるing disposition gives a peevish answer: But he has the toothache, or has not dined. A stupid fellow discovers an uncommon alacrity in his carriage: But he has met with a sudden piece of good fortune. Or even when an 活動／戦闘, as いつかs happens, cannot be 特に accounted for, either by the person himself or by others; we know, in general, that the characters of men are, to a 確かな degree, inconstant and 不規律な. This is, in a manner, the constant character of human nature; though it be applicable, in a more particular manner, to some persons who have no 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 支配する for their 行為／行う, but proceed in a continued course of caprice and inconstancy. The 内部の 原則s and 動機s may operate in a uniform manner, notwithstanding these seeming 不正行為s; in the same manner as the 勝利，勝つd, rain, clouds, and other variations of the 天候 are supposed to be 治める／統治するd by 安定した 原則s; though not easily discoverable by human sagacity and enquiry.

69. Thus it appears, not only that the 合同 between 動機s and voluntary 活動／戦闘s is as 正規の／正選手 and uniform as that between the 原因（となる） and 影響 in any part of nature; but also that this 正規の／正選手 合同 has been universally 定評のある の中で mankind, and has never been the 支配する of 論争, either in philosophy or ありふれた life. Now, as it is from past experience that we draw all inferences 関心ing the 未来, and as we 結論する that 反対するs will always be conjoined together which we find to have always been conjoined; it may seem superfluous to 証明する that this experienced uniformity in human 活動／戦闘s is a source whence we draw inferences 関心ing them. But ーするために throw the argument into a greater variety of lights we shall also 主張する, though 簡潔に, on this latter topic.

The 相互の dependence of men is so 広大な／多数の／重要な in all societies that 不十分な any human 活動／戦闘 is 完全に 完全にする in itself, or is 成し遂げるd without some 言及／関連 to the 活動／戦闘s of others, which are requisite to make it answer fully the 意向 of the スパイ／執行官. The poorest artificer, who 労働s alone, 推定する／予想するs at least the 保護 of the 治安判事, to 確実にする him the enjoyment of the fruits of his 労働. He also 推定する／予想するs that, when he carries his goods to market, and 申し込む／申し出s them at a reasonable price, he shall find purchasers, and shall be able, by the money he acquires, to engage others to 供給（する） him with those 商品／必需品s which are requisite for his subsistence. In 割合 as men 延長する their 取引, and （判決などを）下す their intercourse with others more 複雑にするd, they always comprehend, in their 計画／陰謀s of life, a greater variety of voluntary 活動／戦闘s, which they 推定する／予想する, from the proper 動機s, to co-operate with their own. In all these 結論s they take their 対策 from past experience, in the same manner as in their reasonings 関心ing 外部の 反対するs; and 堅固に believe that men, 同様に as all the elements, are to continue, in their 操作／手術s, the same that they have ever 設立する them. A 製造業者 reckons upon the 労働 of his servants for the 死刑執行 of any work as much as upon the 道具s which he 雇うs, and would be 平等に surprised were his 期待s disappointed. In short, this 実験の inference and 推論する／理由ing 関心ing the 活動／戦闘s of others enters so much into human life that no man, while awake, is ever a moment without 雇うing it. Have we not 推論する／理由, therefore, to 断言する that all mankind have always agreed in the doctrine of necessity によれば the foregoing 鮮明度／定義 and explication of it?

70. Nor have philosophers ever entertained a different opinion from the people in this particular. For, not to について言及する that almost every 活動／戦闘 of their life supposes that opinion, there are even few of the 思索的な parts of learning to which it is not 必須の. What would become of history, had we not a dependence on the veracity of the historian によれば the experience which we have had of mankind? How could politics be a science, if 法律s and forms of 政府 had not a uniform 影響（力） upon society? Where would be the 創立／基礎 of morals, if particular characters had no 確かな or determinate 力／強力にする to produce particular 感情s, and if these 感情s had no constant 操作／手術 on 活動／戦闘s? And with what pretence could we 雇う our 批評 upon any poet or polite author, if we could not pronounce the 行為／行う and 感情s of his actors either natural or unnatural to such characters, and in such circumstances? It seems almost impossible, therefore, to engage either in science or 活動／戦闘 of any 肉親，親類d without 認めるing the doctrine of necessity, and this inference from 動機 to voluntary 活動／戦闘s, from characters to 行為／行う.

And indeed, when we consider how aptly natural and moral 証拠 link together, and form only one chain of argument, we shall make no scruple to 許す that they are of the same nature, and derived from the same 原則s. A 囚人 who has neither money nor 利益／興味, discovers the impossibility of his escape, 同様に when he considers the obstinacy of the gaoler, as the 塀で囲むs and 妨げる／法廷，弁護士業s with which he is surrounded; and, in all 試みる／企てるs for his freedom, chooses rather to work upon the 石／投石する and アイロンをかける of the one, than upon the inflexible nature of the other. The same 囚人, when 行為／行うd to the scaffold, 予知するs his death as certainly from the constancy and fidelity of his guards, as from the 操作／手術 of the axe or wheel. His mind runs along a 確かな train of ideas: The 拒絶 of the 兵士s to 同意 to his escape; the 活動／戦闘 of the executioner; the 分離 of the 長，率いる and 団体／死体; bleeding, convulsive 動議s, and death. Here is a connected chain of natural 原因（となる）s and voluntary 活動／戦闘s; but the mind feels no difference between them in passing from one link to another: Nor is いっそう少なく 確かな of the 未来 event than if it were connected with the 反対するs 現在の to the memory or senses, by a train of 原因（となる）s, 固く結び付けるd together by what we are pleased to call a physical necessity. The same experienced union has the same 影響 on the mind, whether the 部隊d 反対するs be 動機s, volition, and 活動／戦闘s; or 人物／姿／数字 and 動議. We may change the 指名する of things; but their nature and their 操作／手術 on the understanding never change.

Were a man, whom I know to be honest and opulent, and with whom I live in intimate friendship, to come into my house, where I am surrounded with my servants, I 残り／休憩（する） 保証するd that he is not to を刺す me before he leaves it ーするために 略奪する me of my silver standish; and I no more 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う this event than the 落ちるing of the house itself, which is new, and solidly built and 設立するd.- But he may have been 掴むd with a sudden and unknown frenzy.- So may a sudden 地震 arise, and shake and 宙返り／暴落する my house about my ears. I shall therefore change the suppositions. I shall say that I know with certainty that he is not to put his 手渡す into the 解雇する／砲火／射撃 and 持つ／拘留する it there till it be 消費するd: And this event, I think I can foretell with the same 保証／確信, as that, if he throw himself out at the window, and 会合，会う with no obstruction, he will not remain a moment 一時停止するd in the 空気／公表する. No 疑惑 of an unknown frenzy can give the least 可能性 to the former event, which is so contrary to all the known 原則s of human nature. A man who at noon leaves his purse 十分な of gold on the pavement at Charing Cross, may 同様に 推定する／予想する that it will 飛行機で行く away like a feather, as that he will find it untouched an hour after. Above one half of human reasonings 含む／封じ込める inferences of a 類似の nature, …に出席するd with more or いっそう少なく degrees of certainty 割合d to our experience of the usual 行為／行う of mankind in such particular 状況／情勢s.

71. I have frequently considered, what could かもしれない be the 推論する／理由 why all mankind, though they have ever, without hesitation, 定評のある the doctrine of necessity in their whole practice and 推論する／理由ing, have yet discovered such a 不本意 to 認める it in words, and have rather shown a propensity, in all ages, to profess the contrary opinion. The 事柄, I think, may be accounted for after the に引き続いて manner. If we 診察する the 操作／手術s of 団体／死体, and the 生産／産物 of 影響s from their 原因（となる）s, we shall find that all our faculties can never carry us さらに先に in our knowledge of this relation than barely to 観察する that particular 反対するs are 絶えず conjoined together, and that the mind is carried, by a customary 移行, from the 外見 of one to the belief of the other. But though this 結論 関心ing human ignorance be the result of the strictest scrutiny of this 支配する, men still entertain a strong propensity to believe that they 侵入する さらに先に into the 力／強力にするs of nature, and perceive something like a necessary connexion between the 原因（となる） and the 影響. When again they turn their reflections に向かって the 操作／手術s of their own minds, and feel no such connexion of the 動機 and the 活動／戦闘; they are thence apt to suppose, that there is a difference between the 影響s which result from 構成要素 軍隊, and those which arise from thought and 知能. But 存在 once 納得させるd that we know nothing さらに先に of causation of any 肉親，親類d than 単に the constant 合同 of 反対するs, and the consequent inference of the mind from one to another, and finding that these two circumstances are universally 許すd to have place in voluntary 活動／戦闘s; we may be more easily led to own the same necessity ありふれた to all 原因（となる）s. And though this 推論する／理由ing may 否定する the systems of many philosophers, in ascribing necessity to the 決意s of the will, we shall find, upon reflection, that they dissent from it in words only, not in their real 感情. Necessity, （許可，名誉などを）与えるing to the sense in which it is here taken, has never yet been 拒絶するd, nor can ever, I think, be 拒絶するd by any philosopher. It may only, perhaps, be pretended that the mind can perceive, in the 操作／手術s of 事柄, some さらに先に connexion between the 原因（となる） and 影響; and connexion that has not place in voluntary 活動／戦闘s of intelligent 存在s. Now whether it be so or not, can only appear upon examination; and it is 現職の on these philosophers to make good their 主張, by defining or 述べるing that necessity, and pointing it out to us in the 操作／手術s of 構成要素 原因（となる）s.

72. It would seem, indeed, that men begin at the wrong end of this question 関心ing liberty and necessity, when they enter upon it by 診察するing the faculties of the soul, the 影響（力） of the understanding, and the 操作／手術s of the will. Let them first discuss a more simple question, すなわち, the 操作／手術s of 団体／死体 and of brute unintelligent 事柄; and try whether they can there form any idea of causation and necessity, except that of a constant 合同 of 反対するs, and その後の inference of the mind from one to another. If these circumstances form, in reality, the whole of that necessity, which we conceive in 事柄, and if these circumstances be also universally 定評のある to take place in the 操作／手術s of the mind, the 論争 is at an end; at least, must be owned to be thenceforth 単に 言葉の. But as long as we will rashly suppose, that we have some さらに先に idea of necessity and causation in the 操作／手術s of 外部の 反対するs; at the same time, that we can find nothing さらに先に in the voluntary 活動／戦闘s of the mind; there is no 可能性 of bringing the question to any determinate 問題／発行する, while we proceed upon so erroneous a supposition. The only method of undeceiving us is to 開始する up higher; to 診察する the 狭くする extent of science when 適用するd to 構成要素 原因（となる）s; and to 納得させる ourselves that all we know of them is the constant 合同 and inference above について言及するd. We may, perhaps, find that it is with difficulty we are induced to 直す／買収する，八百長をする such 狭くする 限界s to human understanding: But we can afterwards find no difficulty when we come to 適用する this doctrine to the 活動／戦闘s of the will. For as it is evident that these have a 正規の／正選手 合同 with 動機s and circumstances and characters, and as we always draw inferences from one to the other, we must be 強いるd to 認める in words that necessity, which we have already avowed, in every 審議 of our lives, and in every step of our 行為／行う and behaviour.*
[* The prevalence of the doctrine of liberty may be accounted for, from another 原因（となる）, viz. a 誤った sensation or seeming experience which we have, or may have, of liberty or 無関心／冷淡, in many of our 活動／戦闘s. The necessity of any 活動／戦闘, whether of 事柄 or of mind, is not, 適切に speaking, a 質 in the スパイ／執行官, but in any thinking or intelligent 存在, who may consider the 活動／戦闘; and it consists 主として in the 決意 of his thoughts to infer the 存在 of that 活動／戦闘 from some 先行する 反対するs; as liberty, when …に反対するd to necessity, is nothing but the want of that 決意, and a 確かな looseness or 無関心／冷淡, which we feel, in passing, or not passing, from the idea of one 反対する to that of any 後継するing one. Now we may 観察する, that, though, in 反映するing on human 活動／戦闘s, we seldom feel such a looseness, or 無関心／冷淡, but are 一般的に able to infer them with かなりの certainty from their 動機s, and from the dispositions of the スパイ／執行官; yet it frequently happens, that, in 成し遂げるing the 活動／戦闘s themselves, we are sensible of something like it: And as all 似ているing 反対するs are readily taken for each other, this has been 雇うd as a demonstrative and even intuitive proof of human liberty. We feel, that our 活動／戦闘s are 支配する to our will, on most occasions; and imagine we feel, that the will itself is 支配する to nothing, because, when by a 否定 of it we are 刺激するd to try, we feel, that it moves easily every way, and produces an image of itself (or a Velleity, as it is called in the schools) even on that 味方する, on which it did not settle. This image, or faint 動議, we 説得する ourselves, could, at that time, have been compleated into the thing itself; because, should that be 否定するd, we find, upon a second 裁判，公判, that, at 現在の, it can. We consider not, that the fantastical 願望（する） of shewing liberty, is here the 動機 of our 活動／戦闘s. And it seems 確かな , that, however we may imagine we feel a liberty within ourselves, a 観客 can 一般的に infer our 活動／戦闘s from our 動機s and character; and even where he cannot, he 結論するs in general, that he might, were he perfectly 熟知させるd with every circumstance of our 状況／情勢 and temper, and the most secret springs of our complexion and disposition. Now this is the very essence of necessity, によれば the foregoing doctrine.]

73. But to proceed in this reconciling 事業／計画（する） with regard to the question of liberty and necessity; the most contentious question of metaphysics, the most contentious science; it will not 要求する many words to 証明する, that all mankind have ever agreed in the doctrine of liberty 同様に as in that of necessity, and that the whole 論争, in this 尊敬（する）・点 also, has been hitherto 単に 言葉の. For what is meant by liberty, when 適用するd to voluntary 活動／戦闘s? We cannot surely mean that 活動／戦闘s have so little connexion with 動機s, inclinations, and circumstances, that one does not follow with a 確かな degree of uniformity from the other, and that one affords no inference by which we can 結論する the 存在 of the other. For these are plain and 定評のある 事柄s of fact. By liberty, then, we can only mean a 力／強力にする of 事実上の／代理 or not 事実上の／代理, によれば the 決意s of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at 残り／休憩（する）, we may; if we choose to move, we also may. Now this hypothetical liberty is universally 許すd to belong to every one who is not a 囚人 and in chains. Here, then, is no 支配する of 論争.

74. Whatever 鮮明度／定義 we may give of liberty, we should be careful to 観察する two requisite circumstances; first, that it be 一貫した with plain 事柄 of fact; secondly, that it be 一貫した with itself. If we 観察する these circumstances, and （判決などを）下す our 鮮明度／定義 intelligible, I am 説得するd that all mankind will be 設立する of one opinion with regard to it.

It is universally 許すd that nothing 存在するs without a 原因（となる） of its 存在, and that chance, when 厳密に 診察するd, is a mere 消極的な word, and means not any real 力／強力にする which has anywhere a 存在 in nature. But it is pretended that some 原因（となる）s are necessary, some not necessary. Here then is the advantage of 鮮明度／定義s. Let any one define a 原因（となる）, without comprehending, as a part of the 鮮明度／定義, a necessary connexion with its 影響; and let him show distinctly the origin of the idea, 表明するd by the 鮮明度／定義; and I shall readily give up the whole 論争. But if the foregoing explication of the 事柄 be received, this must be 絶対 impracticable. Had not 反対するs a 正規の／正選手 合同 with each other, we should never have entertained any notion of 原因（となる） and 影響; and this 正規の／正選手 合同 produces that inference of the understanding, which is the only connexion, that we can have any comprehension of. Whoever 試みる／企てるs a 鮮明度／定義 of 原因（となる）, 排除的 of these circumstances, will be 強いるd either to 雇う unintelligible 条件 or such as are synonymous to the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 which he endeavours to define.* And if the 鮮明度／定義 above について言及するd be 認める; liberty, when …に反対するd to necessity, not to 強制, is the same thing with chance; which is universally 許すd to have no 存在.
[* Thus, if a 原因（となる） be defined, that which produces any thing; it is 平易な to 観察する, that producing is synonimous to 原因（となる）ing. In like manner, if a 原因（となる） be defined, that by which any thing 存在するs; this is liable to the same 反対. For what is meant by these words, by which? Had it been said, that a 原因（となる） is that after which any thing 絶えず 存在するs; we should have understood the 条件. For this is, indeed, all we know of the 事柄. And this constancy forms the very essence of necessity, nor have we any other idea of it.]

Part II.

Necessity may be defined two ways, conformably to the two 鮮明度／定義s of 原因（となる）, of which it makes an 必須の part. It consists either in the constant 合同 of like 反対するs or in the inference of the understanding from one 反対する to another. Now necessity, in both these senses, (which, indeed, are at 底（に届く） the same) has universally, though tacitly, in the schools, in the pulpit, and in ありふれた life, been 許すd to belong to the will of man; and no one has ever pretended to 否定する that we can draw inferences 関心ing human 活動／戦闘s, and that those inferences are 設立するd on the experienced union of like 活動／戦闘s, with like 動機s, inclinations, and circumstances. The only particular in which any one can 異なる, is, that either, perhaps, he will 辞退する to give the 指名する of necessity to this 所有物／資産／財産 of human 活動／戦闘s: But as long as the meaning is understood, I hope the word can do no 害（を与える）: Or that he will 持続する it possible to discover something さらに先に in the 操作／手術s of 事柄. But this, it must be 定評のある, can be of no consequence to morality or 宗教, whatever it may be to natural philosophy or metaphysics. We may here be mistaken in 主張するing that there is no idea of any other necessity or connexion in the 活動／戦闘s of 団体／死体: But surely we ascribe nothing to the 活動／戦闘s of the mind, but what everyone does, and must readily 許す of. We change no circumstance in the received 正統派の system with regard to the will, but only in that with regard to 構成要素 反対するs and 原因（となる）s. Nothing, therefore, can be more innocent, at least, than this doctrine.

76. All 法律s 存在 設立するd on rewards and 罰s, it is supposed as a 根底となる 原則, that these 動機s have a 正規の／正選手 and uniform 影響（力） on the mind, and both produce the good and 妨げる the evil 活動／戦闘s. We may give to this 影響（力） what 指名する we please; but as it is usually conjoined with the 活動／戦闘, it must be esteemed a 原因（となる）, and be looked upon as an instance of that necessity, which we would here 設立する.

The only proper 反対する of 憎悪 or vengeance is a person or creature, endowed with thought and consciousness; and when any 犯罪の or injurious 活動／戦闘s excite that passion, it is only by their relation to the person, or connexion with him. 活動／戦闘s are, by their very nature, 一時的な and 死なせる／死ぬing; and where they proceed not from some 原因（となる） in the character and disposition of the person who 成し遂げるd them, they can neither redound to his honour, if good; nor infamy if evil. The 活動／戦闘s themselves may be blameable; they may be contrary to all the 支配するs of morality and 宗教: But the person is not 責任のある for them; and as they proceeded from nothing in him that is 持続する and constant, and leave nothing of that nature behind them, it is impossible he can, upon their account, become the 反対する of 罰 or vengeance. によれば the 原則, therefore, which 否定するs necessity, and その結果 原因（となる）s, a man is as pure and untainted, after having committed the most horrid 罪，犯罪, as at the first moment of his birth, nor is his character anywise 関心d in his 活動／戦闘s, since they are not derived from it, and the wickedness of the one can never be used as a proof of the depravity of the other.

Men are not 非難するd for such 活動／戦闘s as they 成し遂げる ignorantly and casually, whatever may be the consequences. Why? but because the 原則s of these 活動／戦闘s are only momentary, and 終結させる in them alone. Men are いっそう少なく 非難するd for such 活動／戦闘s as they 成し遂げる あわてて and unpremeditately than for such as proceed from 審議. For what 推論する／理由? but because a 迅速な temper, though a constant 原因（となる） or 原則 in the mind, operates only by intervals, and 感染させるs not the whole character. Again, repentance wipes off every 罪，犯罪, if …に出席するd with a reformation of life and manners. How is this to be accounted for? but by 主張するing that 活動／戦闘s （判決などを）下す a person 犯罪の 単に as they are proofs of 犯罪の 原則s in the mind; and when, by an alteration of these 原則s, they 中止する to be just proofs, they likewise 中止する to be 犯罪の. But, except upon the doctrine of necessity, they never were just proofs, and その結果 never were 犯罪の.

77. It will be 平等に 平易な to 証明する, and from the same arguments, that liberty, によれば that 鮮明度／定義 above について言及するd, in which all men agree is also 必須の to morality, and that no human 活動／戦闘s, where it is wanting, are susceptible of any moral 質s, or can be the 反対するs either of approbation or dislike. For as 活動／戦闘s are 反対するs of our moral 感情, so far only as they are 指示，表示する物s of the 内部の character, passions, and affections; it is impossible that they can give rise either to 賞賛する or 非難する, where they proceed not from these 原則s, but are derived altogether from 外部の 暴力／激しさ.

78. I pretend not to have obviated or 除去するd all 反対s to this theory, with regard to necessity and liberty. I can 予知する other 反対s, derived from topics which have not here been 扱う／治療するd of. It may be said, for instance, that, if voluntary 活動／戦闘s be 支配するd to the same 法律s of necessity with the 操作／手術s of 事柄, there is a continued chain of necessary 原因（となる）s, preordained and pre-決定するd, reaching from the 初めの 原因（となる） of all to every 選び出す／独身 volition of every human creature. No contingency anywhere in the universe; no 無関心／冷淡; no liberty. While we 行為／法令／行動する, we are, at the same time, 行為／法令／行動するd upon. The ultimate Author of all our volitions is the Creator of the world, who first bestowed 動議 on this 巨大な machine, and placed all 存在s in that particular position, whence every その後の event, by an 必然的な necessity, must result. Human 活動／戦闘s, therefore, either can have no moral turpitude at all, as 訴訟／進行 from so good a 原因（となる）; or if they have any turpitude, they must 伴う／関わる our Creator in the same 犯罪, while he is 定評のある to be their ultimate 原因（となる） and author. For as a man, who 解雇する／砲火／射撃d a 地雷, is 責任のある for all the consequences whether the train he 雇うd be long or short; so wherever a continued chain of necessary 原因（となる）s is 直す／買収する，八百長をするd, that 存在, either finite or infinite, who produces the first, is likewise the author of all the 残り／休憩（する）, and must both 耐える the 非難する and acquire the 賞賛する which belong to them. Our （疑いを）晴らす and unalterable ideas of morality 設立する this 支配する, upon unquestionable 推論する／理由s, when we 診察する the consequences of any human 活動／戦闘; and these 推論する／理由s must still have greater 軍隊 when 適用するd to the volitions and 意向s of a 存在 infinitely wise and powerful. Ignorance or importence may be pleaded for so 限られた／立憲的な a creature as man; but those imperfections have no place in our Creator. He foresaw, he 任命するd, he ーするつもりであるd all those 活動／戦闘s of men, which we so rashly pronounce 犯罪の. And we must therefore 結論する, either that they are not 犯罪の, or that the Deity, not man, is accountable for them. But as either of these positions is absurd and impious, it follows, that the doctrine from which they are deduced cannot かもしれない be true, as 存在 liable to all the same 反対s. An absurd consequence, if necessary, 証明するs the 初めの doctrine to be absurd; in the same manner as 犯罪の 活動／戦闘s （判決などを）下す 犯罪の the 初めの 原因（となる）, if the connexion between them be necessary and evitable.

This 反対 consists of two parts, which we shall 診察する 分かれて; First, that, if human 活動／戦闘s can be traced up, by a necessary chain, to the Deity, they can never be 犯罪の; on account of the infinite perfection of that 存在 from whom they are derived, and who can ーするつもりである nothing but what is altogether good and laudable. Or, Secondly, if they be 犯罪の, we must 撤回する the せいにする of perfection, which we ascribe to the Deity, and must 認める him to be the ultimate author of 犯罪 and moral turpitude in all his creatures.

79. The answer to the first 反対 seems obvious and 納得させるing. There are many philosophers who, after an exact scrutiny of all the phenomena of nature, 結論する, that the whole, considered as one system, is, in every period of its 存在, ordered with perfect benevolence; and that the 最大の possible happiness will, in the end, result to all created 存在s, without any mixture of 肯定的な or 絶対の ill or 悲惨. Every physical ill, say they, makes an 必須の part of this benevolent system, and could not かもしれない be 除去するd, even by the Deity himself, considered as a wise スパイ／執行官, without giving 入り口 to greater ill, or 除外するing greater good, which will result from it. From this theory, some philosophers, and the 古代の Stoics の中で the 残り／休憩（する）, derived a topic of なぐさみ under all afflictions, while they taught their pupils that those ills under which they 労働d were, in reality, goods to the universe; and that to an 大きくするd 見解（をとる）, which could comprehend the whole system of nature, every event became an 反対する of joy and exultation. But though this topic be specious and sublime, it was soon 設立する in practice weak and ineffectual. You would surely more irritate than appease a man lying under the racking 苦痛s of the gout by preaching up to him the rectitude of those general 法律s, which produced the malignant humours in his 団体／死体, and led them through the proper canals, to the sinews and 神経s, where they now excite such 激烈な／緊急の torments. These 大きくするd 見解（をとる）s may, for a moment, please the imagination of a 思索的な man, who is placed in 緩和する and 安全; but neither can they dwell with constancy on his mind, even though undisturbed by the emotions of 苦痛 or passion; much いっそう少なく can they 持続する their ground when attacked by such powerful antagonists. The affections take a narrower and more natural 調査する of their 反対する; and by an economy, more suitable to the infirmity of human minds, regard alone the 存在s around us, and are actuated by such events as appear good or ill to the 私的な system.

80. The 事例／患者 is the same with moral as with physical ill. It cannot reasonably be supposed, that those remote considerations, which are 設立する of so little efficacy with regard to one, will have a more powerful 影響（力） with regard to the other. The mind of man is so formed by nature that, upon the 外見 of 確かな characters, dispositions, and 活動／戦闘s, it すぐに feels the 感情 of approbation or 非難する; nor are there any emotions more 必須の to its でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる and 憲法. The characters which engage our approbation are 主として such as 与える／捧げる to the peace and 安全 of human society; as the characters which excite 非難する are 主として such as tend to public detriment and 騒動: Whence it may reasonably be 推定するd, that the moral 感情s arise, either mediately or すぐに, from a reflection of these opposite 利益／興味s. What though philosophical meditations 設立する a different opinion or conjecture; that everything is 権利 with regard to the whole, and that the 質s, which 乱す society, are, in the main, as 有益な, and are as suitable to the 最初の／主要な 意向 of nature as those which more 直接／まっすぐに 促進する its happiness and 福利事業? Are such remote and uncertain 憶測s able to counterbalance the 感情s which arise from the natural and 即座の 見解（をとる） of the 反対するs? A man who is robbed of a かなりの sum; does he find his vexation for the loss anywise 減らすd by these sublime reflections? Why then should his moral 憤慨 against the 罪，犯罪 be supposed 相いれない with them? Or why should not the 承認 of a real distinction between 副／悪徳行為 and virtue be reconcileable to all 思索的な systems of philosophy, 同様に as that of a real distinction between personal beauty and deformity? Both these distinctions are 設立するd in the natural 感情s of the human mind: And these 感情s are not to be controuled or altered by any philosophical theory or 憶測 どれでも.

81. The second 反対 収容する／認めるs not of so 平易な and 満足な an answer; nor is it possible to explain distinctly, how the Deity can be the 調停する 原因（となる） of all the 活動／戦闘s of men, without 存在 the author of sin and moral turpitude. These are mysteries, which mere natural and unassisted 推論する／理由 is very unfit to 扱う; and whatever system she embraces, she must find herself 伴う／関わるd in inextricable difficulties, and even contradictions, at every step which she takes with regard to such 支配するs. To reconcile the 無関心／冷淡 and contingency of human 活動／戦闘s with prescience; or to defend 絶対の 法令s, and yet 解放する／自由な the Deity from 存在 the author of sin, has been 設立する hitherto to 越える all the 力／強力にする of philosophy. Happy, if she be thence sensible of her temerity, when she 調査するs into these sublime mysteries; and leaving a scene so 十分な of obscurities and perplexities, return, with suitable modesty, to her true and proper 州, the examination of ありふれた life; where she will find difficulties enough to 雇う her enquiries, without 開始する，打ち上げるing into so boundless an ocean of 疑問, 不確定, and contradiction!

Sect. IX. Of the 推論する／理由 of Animals

83. First, It seems evident, that animals 同様に as men learn many things from experience, and infer, that the same events will always follow from the same 原因（となる）s. By this 原則 they become 熟知させるd with the more obvious 所有物／資産／財産s of 外部の 反対するs, and 徐々に, from their birth, treasure up a knowledge of the nature of 解雇する／砲火／射撃, water, earth, 石／投石するs, 高さs, depths, &c., and of the 影響s which result from their 操作／手術. The ignorance and inexperience of the young are here plainly distinguishable from the cunning and sagacity of the old, who have learned, by long 観察, to 避ける what 傷つける them, and to 追求する what gave 緩和する or 楽しみ. A horse, that has been accustomed to the field, becomes 熟知させるd with the proper 高さ which he can leap, and will never 試みる／企てる what 越えるs his 軍隊 and ability. An old greyhound will 信用 the more 疲労，（軍の）雑役ing part of the chace to the younger, and will place himself so as to 会合，会う the hare in her （テニスなどの）ダブルス; nor are the conjectures, which he forms on this occasion, 設立するd in any thing but his 観察 and experience.

This is still more evident from the 影響s of discipline and education on animals, who, by the proper 使用／適用 of rewards and 罰s, may be taught any course of 活動／戦闘, and most contrary to their natural instincts and propensities. Is it not experience which （判決などを）下すs a dog apprehensive of 苦痛, when you menace him, or 解除する up the whip to （警官の）巡回区域，受持ち区域 him? Is is not even experience, which makes him answer to his 指名する, and infer, from such an 独断的な sound, that you mean him rather than any of his fellows, and ーするつもりである to call him, when you pronounce it in a 確かな manner, and with a 確かな トン and accent?

In all these 事例／患者s, we may 観察する, that the animal infers some fact beyond what すぐに strikes his senses; and that this inference is altogether 設立するd on past experience, while the creature 推定する／予想するs from the 現在の 反対する the same consequences, which it has always 設立する in its 観察 to result from 類似の 反対するs.

84. Secondly, It is impossible, that this inference of the animal can be 設立するd on any 過程 of argument or 推論する／理由ing, by which he 結論するs, that like events must follow like 反対するs, and that the course of nature will always be 正規の／正選手 in its 操作／手術s. For if there be in reality any arguments of this nature, they surely 嘘（をつく） too abstruse for the 観察 of such imperfect understandings; since it may 井戸／弁護士席 雇う the 最大の care and attention of a philosophic genius to discover and 観察する them. Animals, therefore, are not guided in these inferences by 推論する／理由ing: Neither are children: Neither are the generality of mankind, in their ordinary 活動／戦闘s and 結論s: Neither are philosophers themselves, who, in all the active parts of life, are, in the main, the same with the vulgar, and are 治める／統治するd by the same maxims. Nature must have 供給するd some other 原則, of more ready, and more general use and 使用／適用; nor can an 操作／手術 of such 巨大な consequence in life, as that of inferring 影響s from 原因（となる）s, be 信用d to the uncertain 過程 of 推論する／理由ing and argumentation. Were this doubtful with regard to men, it seems to 収容する／認める of no question with regard to the brute 創造; and the 結論 存在 once 堅固に 設立するd in the one, we have a strong presumption, from all the 支配するs of analogy, that it せねばならない be universally 認める, without any exception or reserve. It is custom alone, which engages animals, from every 反対する, that strikes their senses, to infer its usual attendant, and carries their imagination, from the 外見 of the one, to conceive the other, in that particular manner, which we denominate belief. No other explication can be given of this 操作／手術, in all the higher, 同様に as lower classes of 極度の慎重さを要する 存在s, which 落ちる under our notice and 観察.*
[* Since all reasonings 関心ing facts or 原因（となる）s is derived 単に from custom, it may be asked how it happens, that men so much より勝る animals in 推論する／理由ing, and one man so much より勝るs another? Has not the same custom the same 影響（力） on all?]

We shall here endeavour 簡潔に to explain the 広大な／多数の／重要な difference in human understandings: After which the 推論する／理由 of the difference between men and animals will easily be comprehended.

1. When we have lived any time, and have been accustomed to the uniformity of nature, we acquire a general habit, by which we always 移転 the known to the unknown, and conceive the latter to 似ている the former. By means of this general habitual 原則, we regard even one 実験 as the 創立／基礎 of 推論する／理由ing, and 推定する／予想する a 類似の event with some degree of certainty, where the 実験 has been made 正確に, and 解放する／自由な from all foreign circumstances. It is therefore considered as a 事柄 of 広大な／多数の／重要な importance to 観察する the consequences of things; and as one man may very much より勝る another in attention and memory and 観察, this will make a very 広大な／多数の／重要な difference in their 推論する／理由ing.
2. Where there is a 複雑化 of 原因（となる）s to produce any 影響, one mind may be much larger than another, and better able to comprehend the whole system of 反対するs, and to infer 正確に，正当に their consequences.
3. One man is able to carry on a chain of consequences to a greater length than another.
4. Few men can think long without running into a 混乱 of ideas, and mistaking one for another; and there are さまざまな degrees of this infirmity.
5. The circumstance, on which the 影響 depends, is frequently 伴う／関わるd in other circumstances, which are foreign and extrinsic. The 分離 of it often 要求するs 広大な／多数の／重要な attention, 正確, and subtilty.
6. The forming of general maxims from particular 観察 is a very nice 操作／手術; and nothing is more usual, from haste or a narrowness of mind, which sees not on all 味方するs, than to commit mistakes in this particular.
7. When we 推論する／理由 from analogies, the man, who has the greater experience or the greater promptitude of 示唆するing analogies, will be the better reasoner.
8. Byasses from prejudice, education, passion, party, &c. hang more upon one mind than another.
9. After we have acquired a 信用／信任 in human 証言, 調書をとる／予約するs and conversation 大きくする much more the sphere of one man's experience and thought than those of another.

It would be 平易な to discover many other circumstances that make a difference in the understandings of men.

85. But though animals learn many parts of their knowledge from 観察, there are also many parts of it, which they derive from the 初めの 手渡す of nature; which much 越える the 株 of capacity they 所有する on ordinary occasions; and in which they 改善する, little or nothing, by the longest practice and experience. These we denominate Instincts, and are so apt to admire as something very 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の, and inexplicable by all the disquisitions of human understanding. But our wonder will, perhaps, 中止する or 減らす, when we consider, that the 実験の 推論する／理由ing itself, which we 所有する in ありふれた with beasts, and on which the whole 行為／行う of life depends, is nothing but a 種類 of instinct or mechanical 力／強力にする, that 行為／法令／行動するs in us unknown to ourselves; and in its 長，指導者 操作／手術s, is not directed by any such relations or comparisons of ideas, as are the proper 反対するs of our 知識人 faculties. Though the instinct be different, yet still it is an instinct, which teaches a man to 避ける the 解雇する／砲火／射撃; as much as that, which teaches a bird, with such exactness, the art of incubation, and the whole economy and order of its nursery.

Sect. X. Of 奇蹟s

Part I.

Nothing is so convenient as a 決定的な argument of this 肉親，親類d, which must at least silence the most arrogant bigotry and superstition, and 解放する／自由な us from their impertinent solicitations. I flatter myself, that I have discovered an argument of a like nature, which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all 肉親，親類d of superstitious delusion, and その結果, will be useful as long as the world 耐えるs. For so long, I 推定する, will the accounts of 奇蹟s and prodigies be 設立する in all history, sacred and profane.

87. Though experience be our only guide in 推論する／理由ing 関心ing 事柄s of fact; it must be 定評のある, that this guide is not altogether infallible, but in some 事例／患者s is apt to lead us into errors. One, who in our 気候, should 推定する／予想する better 天候 in any week of June than in one of December, would 推論する／理由 正確に，正当に, and conformably to experience; but it is 確かな , that he may happen, in the event, to find himself mistaken. However, we may 観察する, that, in such a 事例／患者, he would have no 原因（となる） to complain of experience; because it 一般的に 知らせるs us beforehand of the 不確定, by that contrariety of events, which we may learn from a diligent 観察. All 影響s follow not with like certainty from their supposed 原因（となる）s. Some events are 設立する, in all countries and all ages, to have been 絶えず conjoined together: Others are 設立する to have been more variable, and いつかs to disappoint our 期待s; so that, in our reasonings 関心ing 事柄 of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of 保証／確信, from the highest certainty to the lowest 種類 of moral 証拠.

A wise man, therefore, 割合s his belief to the 証拠. In such 結論s as are 設立するd on an infallible experience, he 推定する／予想するs the event with the last degree of 保証／確信, and regards his past experience as a 十分な proof of the 未来 存在 of that event. In other 事例／患者s, he proceeds with more 警告を与える: He 重さを計るs the opposite 実験s: He considers which 味方する is supported by the greater number of 実験s: to that 味方する he inclines, with 疑問 and hesitation; and when at last he 直す／買収する，八百長をするs his 裁判／判断, the 証拠 越えるs not what we 適切に call probability. All probability, then, supposes an 対立 of 実験s and 観察s, where the one 味方する is 設立する to overbalance the other, and to produce a degree of 証拠, 割合d to the 優越. A hundred instances or 実験s on one 味方する, and fifty on another, afford a doubtful 期待 of any event; though a hundred uniform 実験s, with only one that is contradictory, reasonably beget a pretty strong degree of 保証／確信. In all 事例／患者s, we must balance the opposite 実験s, where they are opposite, and deduct the smaller number from the greater, ーするために know the exact 軍隊 of the superior 証拠.

88. To 適用する these 原則s to a particular instance; we may 観察する that there is no 種類 of 推論する／理由ing more ありふれた, more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the 証言 of men, and the 報告（する）／憶測s of 注目する，もくろむ-証言，証人／目撃するs and 観客s. This 種類 of 推論する／理由ing, perhaps, one may 否定する to be 設立するd on the relation of 原因（となる） and 影響. I shall not 論争 about a word. It will be 十分な to 観察する that our 保証／確信 in any argument of this 肉親，親類d is derived from no other 原則 than our 観察 of the veracity of human 証言, and of the usual 順応／服従 of facts to the 報告（する）／憶測s of 証言，証人／目撃するs. It 存在 a general maxim, that no 反対するs have any discoverable connexion together, and that all the inferences, which we can draw from one to another, are 設立するd 単に on our experience of their constant and 正規の／正選手 合同; it is evident that we ought not to make an exception to this maxim in favour of human 証言, whose connexion with any event seems, in itself, as little necessary as any other. Were not the memory tenacious to a 確かな degree; had not men 一般的に an inclination to truth and a 原則 of probity; were they not sensible to shame, when （悪事，秘密などを）発見するd in a falsehood: Were not these, I say, discovered by experience to be 質s, inherent in human nature, we should never repose the least 信用／信任 in human 証言. A man delirious, or 公式文書，認めるd for falsehood and villany, has no manner of 当局 with us.

And as the 証拠, derived from 証言，証人／目撃するs and human 証言, is 設立するd on past experience, so it 変化させるs with the experience, and is regarded either as a proof or a probability, （許可，名誉などを）与えるing as the 合同 between any particular 肉親，親類d of 報告（する）／憶測 and any 肉親，親類d of 反対する has been 設立する to be constant or variable. There are a number of circumstances to be taken into consideration in all 裁判／判断s of this 肉親，親類d; and the ultimate 基準, by which we 決定する all 論争s, that may arise 関心ing them, is always derived from experience and 観察. Where this experience is not 完全に uniform on any 味方する, it is …に出席するd with an 避けられない contrariety in our 裁判／判断s, and with the same 対立 and 相互の 破壊 of argument as in every other 肉親，親類d of 証拠. We frequently hesitate 関心ing the 報告（する）／憶測s of others. We balance the opposite circumstances, which 原因（となる） any 疑問 or 不確定; and when we discover a 優越 on any 味方する, we incline to it; but still with a diminution of 保証／確信, in 割合 to the 軍隊 of its antagonist.

89. This contrariety of 証拠, in the 現在の 事例／患者, may be derived from several different 原因（となる）s; from the 対立 of contrary 証言; from the character or number of the 証言，証人／目撃するs; from the manner of their 配達するing their 証言; or from the union of all these circumstances. We entertain a 疑惑 関心ing any 事柄 of fact, when the 証言，証人／目撃するs 否定する each other; when they are but few, or of a doubtful character; when they have an 利益／興味 in what they 断言する; when they 配達する their 証言 with hesitation, or on the contrary, with too violent asseverations. There are many other particulars of the same 肉親，親類d, which may 減らす or destroy the 軍隊 of any argument, derived from human 証言.

Suppose, for instance, that the fact, which the 証言 endeavours to 設立する, partakes of the 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の and the marvellous; in that 事例／患者, the 証拠, resulting from the 証言, 収容する／認めるs of a diminution, greater or いっそう少なく, in 割合 as the fact is more or いっそう少なく unusual. The 推論する／理由 why we place any credit in 証言，証人／目撃するs and historians, is not derived from any connexion, which we perceive a priori, between 証言 and reality, but because we are accustomed to find a 順応／服従 between them. But when the fact attested is such a one as has seldom fallen under our 観察, here is a contest of two opposite experiences; of which the one destroys the other, as far as its 軍隊 goes, and the superior can only operate on the mind by the 軍隊, which remains. The very same 原則 of experience, which gives us a 確かな degree of 保証／確信 in the 証言 of 証言，証人／目撃するs, gives us also, in this 事例／患者, another degree of 保証／確信 against the fact, which they endeavour to 設立する; from which contradiction there やむを得ず arises a counterpoize, and 相互の 破壊 of belief and 当局.

I should not believe such a story were it told me by Cato, was a proverbial 説 in Rome, even during the lifetime of that philosophical 愛国者.* The incredibility of a fact, it was 許すd, might 無効にする so 広大な／多数の／重要な an 当局.
[* Plutarch, Marcus Cato.]

The Indian prince, who 辞退するd to believe the first relations 関心ing the 影響s of 霜, 推論する／理由d 正確に，正当に; and it 自然に 要求するd very strong 証言 to engage his assent to facts, that arose from a 明言する／公表する of nature, with which he was unacquainted, and which bore so little analogy to those events, of which he had had constant and uniform experience. Though they were not contrary to his experience, they were not conformable to it.*
[* No Indian, it is evident, could have experience that water did not 凍結する in 冷淡な 気候s. This is placing nature in a 状況／情勢 やめる unknown to him; and it is impossible for him to tell a priori what will result from it. It is making a new 実験, the consequence of which is always uncertain. One may いつかs conjecture from analogy what will follow; but still this is but conjecture. And it must be 自白するd, that, in the 現在の 事例／患者 of 氷点の, the event follows contrary to the 支配するs of analogy, and is such as a 合理的な／理性的な Indian would not look for. The 操作／手術s of 冷淡な upon water are not 漸進的な, によれば the degrees of 冷淡な; but whenever it comes to the 氷点の point, the water passes in a moment, from the 最大の liquidity to perfect hardness. Such an event, therefore, may be denominated 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の, and 要求するs a pretty strong 証言 to （判決などを）下す it 信頼できる to people in a war 気候: But still it is not miraculous, nor contrary to uniform experience of the course of nature in 事例／患者s where all the circumstances are the same. The inhabitants of Sumatra have always seen water fluid in their own 気候, and the 氷点の of their rivers せねばならない be みなすd a prodigy: But they never saw water in Muscovy during the winter; and therefore they cannot reasonably be 肯定的な what would there be the consequence.]

90. But ーするために encrease the probability against the 証言 of 証言，証人／目撃するs, let us suppose, that the fact, which they 断言する, instead of 存在 only marvellous, is really miraculous; and suppose also, that the 証言 considered apart and in itself, 量s to an entire proof; in that 事例／患者, there is proof against proof, of which the strongest must 勝つ／広く一帯に広がる, but still with a diminution of its 軍隊, in 割合 to that of its antagonist.

A 奇蹟 is a 違反 of the 法律s of nature; and as a 会社／堅い and unalterable experience has 設立するd these 法律s, the proof against a 奇蹟, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can かもしれない be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain 一時停止するd in the 空気／公表する; that 解雇する／砲火／射撃 消費するs 支持を得ようと努めるd, and is 消滅させるd by water; unless it be, that these events are 設立する agreeable to the 法律s of nature, and there is 要求するd a 違反 of these 法律s, or in other words, a 奇蹟 to 妨げる them? Nothing is esteemed a 奇蹟, if it ever happen in the ありふれた course of nature. It is no 奇蹟 that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a 肉親，親類d of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently 観察するd to happen. But it is a 奇蹟, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been 観察するd in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, さもなければ the event would not 長所 that 呼称. And as a uniform experience 量s to a proof, there is here a direct and 十分な proof, from the nature of the fact, against the 存在 of any 奇蹟; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the 奇蹟 （判決などを）下すd 信頼できる, but by an opposite proof, which is superior.*
[* いつかs an event may not, in itself, seem to be contrary to the 法律s of nature, and yet, if it were real, it might, by 推論する／理由 of some circumstances, be denominated a 奇蹟; because, in fact, it is contrary to these 法律s. Thus if a person, （人命などを）奪う，主張するing a divine 当局, should 命令（する） a sick person to be 井戸／弁護士席, a healthful man to 落ちる 負かす／撃墜する dead, the clouds to 注ぐ rain, the 勝利，勝つd to blow, in short, should order many natural events, which すぐに follow upon his 命令（する）; these might 正確に，正当に be esteemed 奇蹟s, because they are really, in this 事例／患者, contrary to the 法律s of nature. For if any 疑惑 remain, that the event and 命令（する） concurred by 事故, there is no 奇蹟 and no transgression of the 法律s of nature. If this 疑惑 be 除去するd, there is evidently a 奇蹟, and a transgression of these 法律s; because nothing can be more contrary to nature than that the 発言する／表明する or 命令（する） of a man should have such an 影響（力）. A 奇蹟 may be 正確に defined, a transgression of a 法律 of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible スパイ／執行官. A 奇蹟 may either be discoverable by men or not. This alters not its nature and essence. The raising of a house or ship into the 空気／公表する is a 明白な 奇蹟. The raising of a feather, when the 勝利，勝つd wants ever so little of a 軍隊 requisite for that 目的, is as real a 奇蹟, though not so sensible with regard to us.]

91. The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), "That no 証言 is 十分な to 設立する a 奇蹟, unless the 証言 be of such a 肉親，親類d, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to 設立する; and even in that 事例／患者 there is a 相互の 破壊 of arguments, and the superior only gives us an 保証／確信 suitable to that degree of 軍隊, which remains, after deducting the inferior." When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man 回復するd to life, I すぐに consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I 重さを計る the one 奇蹟 against the other; and によれば the 優越, which I discover, I pronounce my 決定／判定勝ち（する）, and always 拒絶する the greater 奇蹟. If the falsehood of his 証言 would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to 命令（する） my belief or opinion.

Part II.

For first, there is not to be 設立する, in all history, any 奇蹟 attested by a 十分な number of men, of such unquestioned good-sense, education, and learning, as to 安全な・保証する us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted 正直さ, as to place them beyond all 疑惑 of any design to deceive others; of such credit and 評判 in the 注目する，もくろむs of mankind, as to have a 広大な／多数の／重要な 取引，協定 to lose in 事例／患者 of their 存在 （悪事，秘密などを）発見するd in any falsehood; and at the same time, attesting facts 成し遂げるd in such a public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to （判決などを）下す the （犯罪，病気などの）発見 避けられない: All which circumstances are requisite to give us a 十分な 保証／確信 in the 証言 of men.

93. Secondly. We may 観察する in human nature a 原則 which, if 厳密に 診察するd, will be 設立する to 減らす 極端に the 保証／確信, which we might, from human 証言, have, in any 肉親，親類d of prodigy. The maxim, by which we 一般的に 行為／行う ourselves in our reasonings, is, that the 反対するs, of which we have no experience, 似ている those, of which we have; that what we have 設立する to be most usual is always most probable; and that where there is an 対立 of arguments, we せねばならない give the preference to such as are 設立するd on the greatest number of past 観察s. But though, in 訴訟／進行 by this 支配する, we readily 拒絶する any fact which is unusual and incredible in an ordinary degree; yet in 前進するing さらに先に, the mind 観察するs not always the same 支配する; but when anything is 断言するd utterly absurd and miraculous, it rather the more readily 収容する／認めるs of such a fact, upon account of that very circumstance, which せねばならない destroy all its 当局. The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from 奇蹟s, 存在 an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible 傾向 に向かって the belief of those events, from which it is derived. And this goes so far, that even those who cannot enjoy this 楽しみ すぐに, nor can believe those miraculous events, of which they are 知らせるd, yet love to partake of the satisfaction at second-手渡す or by 回復する, and place a pride and delight in exciting the 賞賛 of others.

With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travellers received, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners? But if the spirit of 宗教 join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of ありふれた sense; and human 証言, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to 当局. A religionist may be an 熱中している人, and imagine he sees what has no reality: he may know his narrative to be 誤った, and yet persevere in it, with the best 意向s in the world, for the sake of 促進するing so 宗教上の a 原因（となる）: or even where this delusion has not place, vanity, excited by so strong a 誘惑, operates on him more powerfully than on the 残り／休憩（する） of mankind in any other circumstances; and self-利益／興味 with equal 軍隊. His auditors may not have, and 一般的に have not, 十分な 裁判／判断 to canvass his 証拠: what 裁判／判断 they have, they 放棄する by 原則, in these sublime and mysterious 支配するs: or if they were ever so willing to 雇う it, passion and a heated imagination 乱す the regularity of its 操作／手術s. Their credulity 増加するs his impudence: and his impudence overpowers their credulity.

Eloquence, when at its highest pitch, leaves little room for 推論する／理由 or reflection; but 演説（する）／住所ing itself 完全に to the fancy or the affections, captivates the willing hearers, and subdues their understanding. Happily, this pitch it seldom 達成するs. But what a Tully or a Demosthenes could scarcely 影響 over a Roman or Athenian audience, every Capuchin, every itinerant or 静止している teacher can 成し遂げる over the generality of mankind, and in a higher degree, by touching such 甚だしい／１２ダース and vulgar passions.

The many instances of (1)偽造する／(2)徐々に進むd 奇蹟s, and prophecies, and supernatural events, which, in all ages, have either been （悪事，秘密などを）発見するd by contrary 証拠, or which （悪事，秘密などを）発見する themselves by their absurdity, 証明する 十分に the strong propensity of mankind to the 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の and the marvellous, and ought reasonably to beget a 疑惑 against all relations of this 肉親，親類d. This is our natural way of thinking, even with regard to the most ありふれた and most 信頼できる events. For instance: There is no 肉親，親類d of 報告（する）／憶測 which rises so easily, and spreads so quickly, 特に in country places and 地方の towns, as those 関心ing marriages; insomuch that two young persons of equal 条件 never see each other twice, but the whole neighbourhood すぐに join them together. The 楽しみ of telling a piece of news so 利益／興味ing, of propagating it, and of 存在 the first reporters of it, spreads the 知能. And this is so 井戸／弁護士席 known, that no man of sense gives attention to these 報告（する）／憶測s, till he find them 確認するd by some greater 証拠. Do not the same passions, and others still stronger, incline the generality of mankind to believe and 報告（する）／憶測, with the greatest vehemence and 保証／確信, all 宗教的な 奇蹟s?

94. Thirdly. It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are 観察するd 主として to abound の中で ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be 設立する to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable 許可／制裁 and 当局, which always …に出席する received opinions. When we peruse the first histories of all nations, we are apt to imagine ourselves 輸送（する）d into some new world; where the whole でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる of nature is disjointed, and every element 成し遂げるs its 操作／手術s in a different manner, from what it does at 現在の. 戦う／戦いs, 革命s, pestilence, 飢饉 and death, are never the 影響 of those natural 原因（となる）s, which we experience. Prodigies, omens, oracles, 裁判／判断s, やめる obscure the few natural events, that are intermingled with them. But as the former grow thinner every page, in 割合 as we 前進する nearer the enlightened ages, we soon learn, that there is nothing mysterious or supernatural in the 事例／患者, but that all proceeds from the usual propensity of mankind に向かって the marvellous, and that, though this inclination may at intervals receive a check from sense and learning, it can never be 完全に extirpated from human nature.

It is strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon the perusal of these wonderful historians, that such prodigious events never happen in our days. But it is nothing strange, I hope, that men should 嘘（をつく） in all ages. You must surely have seen instances enough of that frailty. You have yourself heard many such marvellous relations started, which, 存在 扱う／治療するd with 軽蔑（する） by all the wise and judicious, have at last been abandoned even by the vulgar. Be 保証するd, that those renowned lies, which have spread and 繁栄するd to such a monstrous 高さ, arose from like beginnings; but 存在 sown in a more proper 国／地域, 発射 up at last into prodigies almost equal to those which they relate.

It was a wise 政策 in that 誤った prophet, Alexander, who though now forgotten, was once so famous, to lay the first scene of his impostures in Paphlagonia, where, as Lucian tells us, the people were 極端に ignorant and stupid, and ready to swallow even the grossest delusion. People at a distance, who are weak enough to think the 事柄 at all 価値（がある） enquiry, have no 適切な時期 of receiving better （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）. The stories come magnified to them by a hundred circumstances. Fools are industrious in propagating the imposture; while the wise and learned are contented, in general, to deride its absurdity, without 知らせるing themselves of the particular facts, by which it may be distinctly 反駁するd. And thus the impostor above について言及するd was enabled to proceed, from his ignorant Paphlagonians, to the enlisting of votaries, even の中で the Grecian philosophers, and men of the most 著名な 階級 and distinction in Rome: nay, could engage the attention of that 下落する emperor Marcus Aurelius; so far as to make him 信用 the success of a 軍の 探検隊／遠征隊 to his delusive prophecies.

The advantages are so 広大な／多数の／重要な, of starting an imposture の中で an ignorant people, that, even though the delusion should be too 甚だしい／１２ダース to 課す on the generality of them (which, though seldom, is いつかs the 事例／患者) it has a much better chance for 後継するing in remote countries, than if the first scene had been laid in a city renowned for arts and knowledge. The most ignorant and barbarous of these barbarians carry the 報告（する）／憶測 abroad. 非，不，無 of their countrymen have a large correspondence, or 十分な credit and 当局 to 否定する and （警官の）巡回区域，受持ち区域 負かす／撃墜する the delusion. Men's inclination to the marvellous has 十分な 適切な時期 to 陳列する，発揮する itself. And thus a story, which is universally 爆発するd in the place where it was first started, shall pass for 確かな at a thousand miles distance. But had Alexander 直す／買収する，八百長をするd his 住居 at Athens, the philosophers of that renowned 市場 of learning had すぐに spread, throughout the whole Roman empire, their sense of the 事柄; which, 存在 supported by so 広大な／多数の／重要な 当局, and 陳列する，発揮するd by all the 軍隊 of 推論する／理由 and eloquence, had 完全に opened the 注目する，もくろむs of mankind. It is true; Lucian, passing by chance through Paphlagonia, had an 適切な時期 of 成し遂げるing this good office. But, though much to be wished, it does not always happen, that every Alexander 会合，会うs with a Lucian, ready to expose and （悪事，秘密などを）発見する his impostures.

95. I may 追加する as a fourth 推論する／理由, which 減らすs the 当局 of prodigies, that there is no 証言 for any, even those which have not been expressly （悪事，秘密などを）発見するd, that is not …に反対するd by an infinite number of 証言，証人／目撃するs; so that not only the 奇蹟 destroys the credit of 証言, but the 証言 destroys itself. To make this the better understood, let us consider, that, in 事柄s of 宗教, whatever is different is contrary; and that it is impossible the 宗教s of 古代の Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of 中国 should, all of them, be 設立するd on any solid 創立／基礎. Every 奇蹟, therefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these 宗教s (and all of them abound in 奇蹟s), as its direct 範囲 is to 設立する the particular system to which it is せいにするd; so has it the same 軍隊, though more 間接に, to 倒す every other system. In destroying a 競争相手 system, it likewise destroys the credit of those 奇蹟s, on which that system was 設立するd; so that all the prodigies of different 宗教s are to be regarded as contrary facts, and the 証拠s of these prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other. によれば this method of 推論する／理由ing, when we believe any 奇蹟 of Mahomet or his 後継者s, we have for our 令状 the 証言 of a few barbarous Arabians: And on the other 手渡す, we are to regard the 当局 of Titus Livius, Plutarch, Tacitus, and, in short, of all the authors and 証言，証人／目撃するs, Grecian, Chinese, and Roman カトリック教徒, who have 関係のある any 奇蹟 in their particular 宗教; I say, we are to regard their 証言 in the same light as if they had について言及するd that Mahometan 奇蹟, and had in 表明する 条件 否定するd it, with the same certainty as they have for the 奇蹟 they relate. This argument may appear over subtile and 精製するd; but is not in reality different from the 推論する／理由ing of a 裁判官, who supposes that the credit of two 証言，証人／目撃するs, 持続するing a 罪，犯罪 against any one, is destroyed by the 証言 of two others, who 断言する him to have been two hundred leagues distant, at the same instant when the 罪，犯罪 is said to have been committed.

96. One of the best attested 奇蹟s in all profane history, is that which Tacitus 報告（する）／憶測s of Vespasian, who cured a blind man in Alexandria, by means of his spittle, and a lame man by the mere touch of his foot; in obedience to a 見通し of the god Serapis, who had enjoined them to have 頼みの綱 to the Emperor, for these miraculous cures. The story may be seen in that 罰金 historian;* where every circumstance seems to 追加する 負わせる to the 証言, and might be 陳列する，発揮するd 捕まらないで with all the 軍隊 of argument and eloquence, if any one were now 関心d to 施行する the 証拠 of that 爆発するd and idolatrous superstition. The gravity, solidity, age, and probity of so 広大な／多数の／重要な an emperor, who, through the whole course of his life, conversed in a familiar manner with his friends and courtiers, and never 影響する／感情d those 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の 空気／公表するs of divinity assumed by Alexander and Demetrius. The historian, a 同時代の writer, 公式文書，認めるd for candour and veracity, and withal, the greatest and most 侵入するing genius, perhaps, of all antiquity; and so 解放する／自由な from any 傾向 to credulity, that he even lies under the contrary imputation, of atheism and profaneness: The persons, from whose 当局 he 関係のある the 奇蹟, of 設立するd character for 裁判／判断 and veracity, as we may 井戸／弁護士席 推定する; 注目する，もくろむ-証言，証人／目撃するs of the fact, and 確認するing their 証言, after the Flavian family was despoiled of the empire, and could no longer give any reward, as the price of a 嘘（をつく）. Utrumque, qui interfuere, nunc quoque memorant, postquam nullum mendacio pretium. To which if we 追加する the public nature of the facts, as 関係のある, it will appear, that no 証拠 can 井戸／弁護士席 be supposed stronger for so 甚だしい／１２ダース and so palpable a falsehood.
[* Histories, iv. 81. Suetonius gives nearly the same account, Lives of the Caesars (Vespasian).]

There is also a memorable story 関係のある by 枢機けい／主要な de Retz, which may 井戸／弁護士席 deserve our consideration. When that intriguing 政治家，政治屋 fled into Spain, to 避ける the 迫害 of his enemies, he passed through Saragossa, the 資本／首都 of Aragon, where he was shewn, in the cathedral, a man, who had served seven years as a doorkeeper, and was 井戸／弁護士席 known to every 団体／死体 in town, that had ever paid his devotions at that church. He had been seen, for so long a time, wanting a 脚; but 回復するd that 四肢 by the rubbing of 宗教上の oil upon the stump; and the 枢機けい／主要な 保証するs us that he saw him with two 脚s. This 奇蹟 was vouched by all the canons of the church; and the whole company in town were 控訴，上告d to for a 確定／確認 of the fact; whom the 枢機けい／主要な 設立する, by their 熱心な devotion, to be 徹底的な 信奉者s of the 奇蹟. Here the relater was also 同時代の to the supposed prodigy, of an incredulous and libertine character, 同様に as of 広大な／多数の／重要な genius; the 奇蹟 of so singular a nature as could scarcely 収容する／認める of a 偽造の, and the 証言，証人／目撃するs very 非常に／多数の, and all of them, in a manner, 観客s of the fact, to which they gave their 証言. And what 追加するs mightily to the 軍隊 of the 証拠, and may 二塁打 our surprise on this occasion, is, that the 枢機けい／主要な himself, who relates the story, seems not to give any credit to it, and その結果 cannot be 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑うd of any concurrence in the 宗教上の 詐欺. He considered 正確に，正当に, that it was not requisite, ーするために 拒絶する a fact of this nature, to be able 正確に to disprove the 証言, and to trace its falsehood, through all the circumstances of knavery and credulity which produced it. He knew, that, as this was 一般的に altogether impossible at any small distance of time and place; so was it 極端に difficult, even where one was すぐに 現在の, by 推論する／理由 of the bigotry, ignorance, cunning, and roguery of a 広大な／多数の／重要な part of mankind. He therefore 結論するd, like a just reasoner, that such an 証拠 carried falsehood upon the very 直面する of it, and that a 奇蹟, supported by any human 証言, was more 適切に a 支配する of derision than of argument.

There surely never was a greater number of 奇蹟s ascribed to one person, than those, which were lately said to have been wrought in フラン upon the tomb of Abbe Paris, the famous Jansenist, with whose sanctity the people were so long deluded. The curing of the sick, giving 審理，公聴会 to the deaf, and sight to the blind, were every where talked of as the usual 影響s of that 宗教上の sepulchre. But what is more 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の; many of the 奇蹟s were すぐに 証明するd upon the 位置／汚点／見つけ出す, before 裁判官s of unquestioned 正直さ, attested by 証言，証人／目撃するs of credit and distinction, in a learned age, and on the most 著名な theatre that is now in the world. Nor is this all: a relation of them was published and 分散させるd every where; nor were the Jesuits, though a learned 団体／死体, supported by the civil 治安判事, and 決定するd enemies to those opinions, in whose favour the 奇蹟s were said to have been wrought, ever able distinctly to 反駁する or （悪事，秘密などを）発見する them. Where shall we find such a number of circumstances, agreeing to the corroboration of one fact? And what have we to …に反対する to such a cloud of 証言，証人／目撃するs, but the 絶対の impossibility or miraculous nature of the events, which they relate? And this surely, in the 注目する，もくろむs of all reasonable people, will alone be regarded as a 十分な refutation.

97. Is the consequence just, because some human 証言 has the 最大の 軍隊 and 当局 in some 事例／患者s, when it relates the 戦う／戦い of Philippi or Pharsalia for instance; that therefore all 肉親，親類d of 証言 must, in all 事例／患者s, have equal 軍隊 and 当局? Suppose that the Caesarean and Pompeian 派閥s had, each of them, （人命などを）奪う，主張するd the victory in these 戦う／戦いs, and that the historians of each party had uniformly ascribed the advantage to their own 味方する; how could mankind, at this distance, have been able to 決定する between them? The contrariety is 平等に strong between the 奇蹟s 関係のある by Herodotus or Plutarch, and those 配達するd by Mariana, Bede, or any monkish historian.

The wise lend a very academic 約束 to every 報告（する）／憶測 which favours the passion of the reporter; whether it magnifies his country, his family, or himself, or in any other way strikes in with his natural inclinations and propensities. But what greater 誘惑 than to appear a missionary, a prophet, an 外交官／大使 from heaven? Who would not 遭遇（する） many dangers and difficulties, ーするために 達成する so sublime a character? Or if, by the help of vanity and a heated imagination, a man has first made a 変える of himself, and entered 本気で into the delusion I who ever scruples to make use of pious 詐欺s, in support of so 宗教上の and meritorious a 原因（となる）?

The smallest 誘発する may here kindle into the greatest 炎上; because the 構成要素s are always 用意が出来ている for it. The avidum genus auricularum,* the gazing populace, receive greedily, without examination, whatever sooths superstition, and 促進するs wonder.
[* Lucretius.]

How many stories of this nature have in all ages, been （悪事，秘密などを）発見するd and 爆発するd in their 幼少／幼藍期? How many more have been celebrated for a time, and have afterwards sunk into neglect and oblivion? Where such 報告（する）／憶測s, therefore, 飛行機で行く about, the 解答 of the 現象 is obvious; and we in 順応／服従 to 正規の／正選手 experience and 観察, when we account for it by the known and natural 原則s of credulity and delusion. And shall we, rather than have a 頼みの綱 to so natural a 解答, 許す of a miraculous 違反 of the most 設立するd 法律s of nature?

I need not について言及する the difficulty of （悪事，秘密などを）発見するing a falsehood in any 私的な or even public history, at the place, where it is said to happen; much more when the scene is 除去するd to ever so small a distance. Even a 法廷，裁判所 of judicature, with all the 当局, 正確, and 裁判／判断, which they can 雇う, find themselves often at a loss to distinguish between truth and falsehood in the most 最近の 活動／戦闘s. But the 事柄 never comes to any 問題／発行する, if 信用d to the ありふれた method of altercations and 審議 and 飛行機で行くing rumours; 特に when men's passions have taken part on either 味方する.

In the 幼少／幼藍期 of new 宗教s, the wise and learned 一般的に esteem the 事柄 too inconsiderable to deserve their attention or regard. And when afterwards they would willingly （悪事，秘密などを）発見する the cheat, ーするために undeceive the deluded multitude, the season is now past, and the 記録，記録的な／記録するs and 証言，証人／目撃するs, which might （疑いを）晴らす up the 事柄, have 死なせる／死ぬd beyond 回復.

No means of （犯罪，病気などの）発見 remain, but those which must be drawn from the very 証言 itself of the reporters: and these, though always 十分な with the judicious and knowing, are 一般的に too 罰金 to 落ちる under the comprehension of the vulgar.

98. Upon the whole, then, it appears, that no 証言 for any 肉親，親類d of 奇蹟 has ever 量d to a probability, much いっそう少なく to a proof; and that, even supposing it 量d to a proof, it would be …に反対するd by another proof, derived from the very nature of the fact, which it would endeavour to 設立する. It is experience only, which gives 当局 to human 証言; and it is the same experience, which 保証するs us of the 法律s of nature. When, therefore, these two 肉親，親類d of experience are contrary, we have nothing to do but substract the one from the other, and embrace an opinion, either on one 味方する or the other, with that 保証／確信 which arises from the 残りの人，物. But によれば the 原則 here explained, this substraction, with regard to all popular 宗教s, 量s to an entire annihilation; and therefore we may 設立する it as a maxim, that no human 証言 can have such 軍隊 as to 証明する a 奇蹟, and make it a just 創立／基礎 for any such system of 宗教.

99. I beg the 制限s here made may be 発言／述べるd, when I say, that a 奇蹟 can never be 証明するd, so as to be the 創立／基礎 of a system of 宗教. For I own, that さもなければ, there may かもしれない be 奇蹟s, or 違反s of the usual course of nature, of such a 肉親，親類d as to 収容する／認める of proof from human 証言; though, perhaps, it will be impossible to find any such in all the 記録，記録的な／記録するs of history. Thus, suppose all authors, in all languages, agree, that, from the first of January 1600, there was a total 不明瞭 over the whole earth for eight days: suppose that the tradition of this 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の event is still strong and lively の中で the people: that all travellers, who return from foreign countries, bring us accounts of the same tradition, without the least variation or contradiction: it is evident, that our 現在の philosophers, instead of 疑問ing the fact, せねばならない receive it as 確かな , and せねばならない search for the 原因（となる）s whence it might be derived. The decay, 汚職, and 解散 of nature, is an event （判決などを）下すd probable by so many analogies, that any 現象, which seems to have a 傾向 に向かって that 大災害, comes within the reach of human 証言, if that 証言 be very 広範囲にわたる and uniform.

But suppose, that all the historians who 扱う／治療する of England, should agree, that, on the first of January 1600, Queen Elizabeth died; that both before and after her death she was seen by her 内科医s and the whole 法廷，裁判所, as is usual with persons of her 階級; that her 後継者 was 定評のある and 布告するd by the 議会; and that, after 存在 interred a month, she again appeared, 再開するd the 王位, and 治める／統治するd England for three years: I must 自白する that I should be surprised at the concurrence of so many 半端物 circumstances, but should not have the least inclination to believe so miraculous an event. I should not 疑問 of her pretended death, and of those other public circumstances that followed it: I should only 主張する it to have been pretended, and that it neither was, nor かもしれない could be real. You would in vain 反対する to me the difficulty, and almost impossibility of deceiving the world in an 事件／事情／状勢 of such consequence; the 知恵 and solid 裁判／判断 of that renowned queen; with the little or no advantage which she could 得る from so poor an artifice: All this might astonish me; but I would still reply, that the knavery and folly of men are such ありふれた phenomena, that I should rather believe the most 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の events to arise from their concurrence, than 収容する／認める of so signal a 違反 of the 法律s of nature.

But should this 奇蹟 be ascribed to any new system of 宗教; men, in all ages, have been so much 課すd on by ridiculous stories of that 肉親，親類d, that this very circumstance would be a 十分な proof of a cheat, and 十分な, with all men of sense, not only to make them 拒絶する the fact, but even 拒絶する it without さらに先に examination. Though the 存在 to whom the 奇蹟 is ascribed, be, in this 事例／患者, Almighty, it does not, upon that account, become a whit more probable; since it is impossible for us to know the せいにするs or 活動／戦闘s of such a 存在, さもなければ than from the experience which we have of his 生産／産物s, in the usual course of nature. This still 減ずるs us to past 観察, and 強いるs us to compare the instances of the 違反 of truth in the 証言 of men, with those of the 違反 of the 法律s of nature by 奇蹟s, ーするために 裁判官 which of them is most likely and probable. As the 違反s of truth are more ありふれた in the 証言 関心ing 宗教的な 奇蹟s, than in that 関心ing any other 事柄 of fact; this must 減らす very much the 当局 of the former 証言, and make us form a general 決意／決議, never to lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretence it may be covered.

Lord Bacon seems to have embraced the same 原則s of 推論する／理由ing. "We ought," says he, "to make a collection or particular history of all monsters and prodigious births or 生産／産物s, and in a word of everything new, rare, and 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の in nature. But this must be done with the most 厳しい scrutiny, lest we 出発／死 from truth. Above all, every relation must be considered as 怪しげな, which depends in any degree upon 宗教, as the prodigies of Livy: And no いっそう少なく so, everything that is to be 設立する in the writers of natural 魔法 or alchemy, or such authors, who seem, all of them, to have an unconquerable appetite for falsehood and fable."*
[* Novum Organum, II, aph. 29.]

100. I am the better pleased with the method of 推論する／理由ing here 配達するd, as I think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian 宗教, who have undertaken to defend it by the 原則s of human 推論する／理由. Our most 宗教上の 宗教 is 設立するd on 約束, not on 推論する／理由; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a 裁判，公判 as it is, by no means, fitted to 耐える. To make this more evident, let us 診察する those 奇蹟s, 関係のある in scripture; and not to lose ourselves in too wide a field, let us 限定する ourselves to such as we find in the Pentateuch, which we shall 診察する, によれば the 原則s of these pretended Christians, not as the word or 証言 of God himself, but as the 生産／産物 of a mere human writer and historian. Here then we are first to consider a 調書をとる／予約する, 現在のd to us by a barbarous and ignorant people, written in an age when they were still more barbarous, and in all probability long after the facts which it relates, 確認するd by no concurring 証言, and 似ているing those fabulous accounts, which every nation gives of its origin. Upon reading this 調書をとる／予約する, we find it 十分な of prodigies and 奇蹟s. It gives an account of a 明言する／公表する of the world and of human nature 完全に different from the 現在の: Of our 落ちる from that 明言する／公表する: Of the age of man, 延長するd to 近づく a thousand years: Of the 破壊 of the world by a deluge: Of the 独断的な choice of one people, as the favourites of heaven; and that people the countrymen of the author: Of their deliverance from bondage by prodigies the most astonishing imaginable: I 願望（する） anyone to lay his 手渡す upon his heart, and after a serious consideration 宣言する, whether he thinks that the falsehood of such a 調書をとる／予約する, supported by such a 証言, would be more 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の and miraculous than all the 奇蹟s it relates; which is, however, necessary to make it be received, によれば the 対策 of probability above 設立するd.

101. What we have said of 奇蹟s may be 適用するd, without any variation, to prophecies; and indeed, all prophecies are real 奇蹟s, and as such only, can be 認める as proofs of any 発覚. If it did not 越える the capacity of human nature to foretell 未来 events, it would be absurd to 雇う any prophecy as an argument for a divine 使節団 or 当局 from heaven. So that, upon the whole, we may 結論する, that the Christian 宗教 not only was at first …に出席するd with 奇蹟s, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere 推論する／理由 is insufficient to 納得させる us of its veracity: And whoever is moved by 約束 to assent to it, is conscious of a continued 奇蹟 in his own person, which subverts all the 原則s of his understanding, and gives him a 決意 to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.

Sect. XI. Of a particular Providence and of a 未来 明言する／公表する

Our conversation began with my admiring the singular good fortune of philosophy, which, as it 要求するs entire liberty above all other 特権s, and 主として 繁栄するs from the 解放する／自由な 対立 of 感情s and argumentation, received its first birth in an age and country of freedom and toleration, and was never cramped, even in its most extravagant 原則s, by any creeds, 譲歩s, or penal 法令s. For, except the banishment of Protagoras, and the death of Socrates, which last event proceeded partly from other 動機s, there are scarcely any instances to be met with, in 古代の history, of this bigotted jealousy, with which the 現在の age is so much infested. Epicurus lived at Athens to an 前進するd age, in peace and tranquillity: Epicureans* were even 認める to receive the sacerdotal character, and to officiate at the altar, in the most sacred 儀式s of the 設立するd 宗教: And the public 激励** of 年金s and salaries was afforded 平等に, by the wisest of all the Roman emperors,*** to the professors of every sect of philosophy. How requisite such 肉親，親類d of 治療 was to philosophy, in her 早期に 青年, will easily be conceived, if we 反映する, that, even at 現在の, when she may be supposed more hardy and 強健な, she 耐えるs with much difficulty the inclemency of the seasons, and those 厳しい 勝利，勝つd of calumny and 迫害, which blow upon her.
[* Lucian, sump. e Lapithai (The 祝宴, or the Lapiths).]
[** Lucian, eunouchos (The Eunuch).]
[*** Lucian and Dio.]

You admire, says my friend, as the singular good fortune of philosophy, what seems to result from the natural course of things, and to be 避けられない in every age and nation. This pertinacious bigotry, of which you complain, as so 致命的な to philosophy, is really her offspring, who, after 同盟（する）ing with superstition, separates himself 完全に from the 利益／興味 of his parent, and becomes her most inveterate enemy and persecutor. 思索的な dogmas of 宗教, the 現在の occasions of such furious 論争, could not かもしれない be conceived or 認める in the 早期に ages of the world; when mankind, 存在 wholly 無学の, formed an idea of 宗教 more suitable to their weak 逮捕, and composed their sacred tenets of such tales 主として as were the 反対するs of 伝統的な belief, more than of argument or disputation. After the first alarm, therefore, was over, which arose from the new paradoxes and 原則s of the philosophers; these teachers seem ever after, during the ages of antiquity, to have lived in 広大な／多数の／重要な harmony with the 設立するd superstition, and to have made a fair partition of mankind between them; the former （人命などを）奪う，主張するing all the learned and wise, the latter 所有するing all the vulgar and 無学の.

103. It seems then, say I, that you leave politics 完全に out of the question, and never suppose, that a wise 治安判事 can 正確に，正当に be jealous of 確かな tenets of philosophy, such as those of Epicurus, which, 否定するing a divine 存在, and その結果 a providence and a 未来 明言する／公表する, seem to 緩和する, in a 広大な／多数の／重要な 手段, the 関係 of morality, and may be supposed, for that 推論する／理由, pernicious to the peace of civil society.

I know, replied he, that in fact these 迫害s never, in any age, proceeded from 静める 推論する／理由, or from experience of the pernicious consequences of philosophy; but arose 完全に from passion and prejudice. But what if I should 前進する さらに先に, and 主張する, that if Epicurus had been （刑事）被告 before the people, by any of the sycophants or 密告者s of those days, he could easily have defended his 原因（となる）, and 証明するd his 原則s of philosophy to be as salutary as those of his adversaries, who endeavoured, with such zeal, to expose him to the public 憎悪 and jealousy?

I wish, said I, you would try your eloquence upon so 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の a topic, and make a speech for Epicurus, which might 満足させる, not the 暴徒 of Athens, if you will 許す that 古代の and polite city to have 含む／封じ込めるd any 暴徒, but the more philosophical part of his audience, such as might be supposed 有能な of comprehending his arguments.

The 事柄 would not be difficult, upon such 条件s, replied he: And if you please, I shall suppose myself Epicurus for a moment, and make you stand for the Athenian people, and shall 配達する you such an harangue as will fill all the urn with white beans, and leave not a 黒人／ボイコット one to gratify the malice of my adversaries.

Very 井戸／弁護士席: Pray proceed upon these suppositions.

104. I come hither, O ye Athenians, to 正当化する in your 議会 what I 持続するd in my school, and I find myself 弾こうするd by furious antagonists, instead of 推論する／理由ing with 静める and dispassionate enquirers. Your 審議s, which of 権利 should be directed to questions of public good, and the 利益／興味 of the 連邦／共和国, are コースを変えるd to the disquisitions of 思索的な philosophy; and these magnificent, but perhaps fruitless enquiries, take place of your more familiar but more useful 占領／職業s. But so far as in me lies, I will 妨げる this 乱用. We shall not here 論争 関心ing the origin and 政府 of worlds. We shall only enquire how far such questions 関心 the public 利益／興味. And if I can 説得する you, that they are 完全に indifferent to the peace of society and 安全 of 政府, I hope that you will presently send us 支援する to our schools, there to 診察する, at leisure, the question the most sublime, but at the same time, the most 思索的な of all philosophy.

The 宗教的な philosophers, not 満足させるd with the tradition of your forefathers, and doctrine of your priests (in which I willingly acquiesce), indulge a 無分別な curiosity, in trying how far they can 設立する 宗教 upon the 原則s of 推論する／理由; and they その為に excite, instead of 満足させるing, the 疑問s, which 自然に arise from a diligent and scrutinous enquiry. They paint, in the most magnificent colours, the order, beauty, and wise 協定 of the universe; and then ask, if such a glorious 陳列する，発揮する of 知能 could proceed from the fortuitous concourse of 原子s, or if chance could produce what the greatest genius can never 十分に admire. I shall not 診察する the justness of this argument. I shall 許す it to be as solid as my antagonists and accusers can 願望（する）. It is 十分な, if I can 証明する, from this very 推論する／理由ing, that the question is 完全に 思索的な, and that, when, in my philosophical disquisitions, I 否定する a providence and a 未来 明言する／公表する, I 土台を崩す not the 創立／基礎s of society, but 前進する 原則s, which they themselves, upon their own topics, if they argue 終始一貫して, must 許す to be solid and 満足な.

105. You then, who are my accusers, have 定評のある, that the 長，指導者 or 単独の argument for a divine 存在 (which I never questioned) is derived from the order of nature; where there appear such 示すs of 知能 and design, that you think it extravagant to 割り当てる for its 原因（となる）, either chance, or the blind and unguided 軍隊 of 事柄. You 許す, that this is an argument drawn from 影響s to 原因（となる）s. From the order of the work, you infer, that there must have been 事業／計画（する） and forethought in the workman. If you cannot make out this point, you 許す, that your 結論 fails; and you pretend not to 設立する the 結論 in a greater latitude than the phenomena of nature will 正当化する. These are your 譲歩s. I 願望（する） you to 示す the consequences.

When we infer any particular 原因（となる） from an 影響, we must 割合 the one to the other, and can never be 許すd to ascribe to the 原因（となる） any 質s, but what are 正確に／まさに 十分な to produce the 影響. A 団体／死体 of ten ounces raised in any 規模 may serve as a proof, that the counterbalancing 負わせる 越えるs ten ounces; but can never afford a 推論する／理由 that it 越えるs a hundred, If the 原因（となる）, 割り当てるd for any 影響, be not 十分な to produce it, we must either 拒絶する that 原因（となる）, or 追加する to it such 質s as will give it a just 割合 to the 影響. But if we ascribe to it さらに先に 質s, or 断言する it 有能な of producing other 影響s, we can only indulge the licence of conjecture, and arbitrarily suppose the 存在 of 質s and energies, without 推論する／理由 or 当局.

The same 支配する 持つ／拘留するs, whether the 原因（となる） 割り当てるd be brute unconscious 事柄, or a 合理的な／理性的な intelligent 存在. If the 原因（となる） be known only by the 影響, we never せねばならない ascribe to it any 質s, beyond what are 正確に requisite to produce the 影響: Nor can we, by any 支配するs of just 推論する／理由ing, return 支援する from the 原因（となる）, and infer other 影響s from it, beyond those by which alone it is known to us. No one, 単に from the sight of one of Zeuxis's pictures, could know, that he was also a statuary or architect, and was an artist no いっそう少なく skilful in 石／投石する and marble than in colours. The talents and taste, 陳列する，発揮するd in the particular work before us; these we may 安全に 結論する the workman to be 所有するd of. The 原因（となる） must be 割合d to the 影響; and if we 正確に／まさに and 正確に 割合 it, we shall never find in it any 質s, that point さらに先に, or afford an inference 関心ing any other design or 業績／成果. Such 質s must be somewhat beyond what is 単に requisite for producing the 影響, which we 診察する.

106. 許すing, therefore, the gods to be the authors of the 存在 or order of the universe; it follows, that they 所有する that 正確な degree of 力／強力にする, 知能, and benevolence, which appears in their workmanship; but nothing さらに先に can ever be 証明するd, except we call in the 援助 of exaggeration and flattery to 供給（する） the defects of argument and 推論する／理由ing. So far as the traces of any せいにするs, at 現在の, appear, so far may we 結論する these せいにするs to 存在する. The supposition of さらに先に せいにするs is mere hypothesis; much more the supposition, that, in distant 地域s of space or periods of time, there has been, or will be, a more magnificent 陳列する，発揮する of these せいにするs, and a 計画／陰謀 of 行政 more suitable to such imaginary virtues. We can never be 許すd to 開始する up from the universe, the 影響, to Jupiter, the 原因（となる）; and then descend downwards, to infer any new 影響 from that 原因（となる）; as if the 現在の 影響s alone were not 完全に worthy of the glorious せいにするs, which we ascribe to that deity. The knowledge of the 原因（となる） 存在 derived 単独で from the 影響, they must be 正確に／まさに adjusted to each other; and the one can never 言及する to anything その上の, or be the 創立／基礎 of any new inference and 結論.

You find 確かな phenomena in nature. You 捜し出す a 原因（となる） or author. You imagine that you have 設立する him. You afterwards become so enamoured of this offspring of your brain, that you imagine it impossible, but he must produce something greater and more perfect than the 現在の scene of things, which is so 十分な of ill and disorder. You forget, that this superlative 知能 and benevolence are 完全に imaginary, or at least, without any 創立／基礎 in 推論する／理由; and that you have no ground to ascribe to him any 質s, but what you see he has 現実に 発揮するd and 陳列する，発揮するd in his 生産／産物s. Let your gods, therefore, O philosophers, be ふさわしい to the 現在の 外見s of nature: and 推定する not to alter these 外見s by 独断的な suppositions, ーするために 控訴 them to the せいにするs, which you so 情愛深く ascribe to your deities.

107. When priests and poets, supported by your 当局, O Athenians, talk of a golden or silver age, which に先行するd the 現在の 明言する／公表する of 副／悪徳行為 and miscry, I hear them with attention and with reverence. But when philosophers, who pretend to neglect 当局, and to cultivate 推論する／理由, 持つ／拘留する the same discourse, I 支払う／賃金 them not, I own, the same obsequious submission and pious deference. I ask; who carried them into the celestial 地域s, who 認める them into the 会議s of the gods, who opened to them the 調書をとる／予約する of 運命／宿命, that they thus rashly 断言する, that their deities have 遂行する／発効させるd, or will 遂行する／発効させる, any 目的 beyond what has 現実に appeared? If they tell me, that they have 機動力のある on the steps or by the 漸進的な ascent of 推論する／理由, and by 製図／抽選 inferences from 影響s to 原因（となる）s, I still 主張する, that they have 補佐官d the ascent of 推論する／理由 by the wings of imagination; さもなければ they could not thus change their manner of inference, and argue from 原因（となる）s to 影響s; 推定するing, that a more perfect 生産／産物 than the 現在の world would be more suitable to such perfect 存在s as the gods, and forgetting that they have no 推論する／理由 to ascribe to these celestial 存在s any perfection or any せいにする, but what can be 設立する in the 現在の world.

Hence all the fruitless 産業 to account for the ill 外見s of nature, and save the honour of the gods; while we must 認める the reality of that evil and disorder, with which the world so much abounds. The obstinate and intractable 質s of 事柄, we are told, or the observance of general 法律s, or some such 推論する／理由, is the 単独の 原因（となる）, which controlled the 力／強力にする and benevolence of Jupiter, and 強いるd him to create mankind and every sensible creature so imperfect and so unhappy. These せいにするs then, are, it seems, beforehand, taken for 認めるd, in their greatest latitude. And upon that supposition, I own that such conjectures may, perhaps, be 認める as plausible 解答s of the ill phenomena. But still I ask; Why take these せいにするs for 認めるd, or why ascribe to the 原因（となる） any 質s but what 現実に appear in the 影響? Why 拷問 your brain to 正当化する the course of nature upon suppositions, which, for aught you know, may be 完全に imaginary, and of which there are to be 設立する no traces in the course of nature?

The 宗教的な hypothesis, therefore, must be considered only as a particular method of accounting for the 明白な phenomena of the universe: but no just reasoner will ever 推定する to infer from it any 選び出す／独身 fact, and alter or 追加する to the phenomena, in any 選び出す／独身 particular. If you think, that the 外見s of things 証明する such 原因（となる）s, it is allowable for you to draw an inference 関心ing the 存在 of these 原因（となる）s. In such 複雑にするd and sublime 支配するs, every one should be indulged in the liberty of conjecture and argument. But here you せねばならない 残り／休憩（する）. If you come backward, and arguing from your inferred 原因（となる）s, 結論する, that any other fact has 存在するd, or will 存在する, in the course of nature, which may serve as a fuller 陳列する，発揮する of particular せいにするs; I must admonish you, that you have 出発／死d from the method of 推論する／理由ing, 大（公）使館員d to the 現在の 支配する, and have certainly 追加するd something to the せいにするs of the 原因（となる）, beyond what appears in the 影響; さもなければ you could never, with tolerable sense or propriety, 追加する anything to the 影響, ーするために （判決などを）下す it more worthy of the 原因（となる）.

108. Where, then, is the odiousness of that doctrine, which I teach in my school, or rather, which I 診察する in my gardens? Or what do you find in this whole question, wherein the 安全 of good morals, or the peace and order of society, is in the least 関心d?

I 否定する a providence, you say, and 最高の 知事 of the world, who guides the course of events, and punishes the vicious with infamy and 失望, and rewards the virtuous with honour and success, in all their undertakings. But surely, I 否定する not the course itself of events, which lies open to every one's 調査 and examination. I 認める, that, in the 現在の order of things, virtue is …に出席するd with more peace of mind than 副／悪徳行為, and 会合，会うs with a more favourable 歓迎会 from the world. I am sensible, that, によれば the past experience of mankind, friendship is the 長，指導者 joy of human life, and moderation the only source of tranquillity and happiness. I never balance between the virtuous and the vicious course of life; but am sensible, that, to a 井戸／弁護士席-性質の／したい気がして mind, every advantage is on the 味方する of the former. And what can you say more, 許すing all your suppositions and reasonings? You tell me, indeed, that this disposition of things proceeds from 知能 and design. But whatever it proceeds from, the disposition itself, on which depends our happiness or 悲惨, and その結果 our 行為／行う and deportment in life is still the same. It is still open for me, 同様に as you, to 規制する my behaviour, by my experience of past events. And if you 断言する, that, while a divine providence is 許すd, and a 最高の distributive 司法（官） in the universe, I せねばならない 推定する／予想する some more particular reward of the good, and 罰 of the bad, beyond the ordinary course of events; I here find the same fallacy, which I have before endeavoured to （悪事，秘密などを）発見する. You 固執する in imagining, that, if we 認める that divine 存在, for which you so 真面目に 競う, you may 安全に infer consequences from it, and 追加する something to the experienced order of nature, by arguing from the せいにするs which you ascribe to your gods. You seem not to remember, that all your reasonings on this 支配する can only be drawn from 影響s to 原因（となる）s; and that every argument, deducted from 原因（となる）s to 影響s, must of necessity be a 甚だしい／１２ダース so phism; since it is impossible for you to know anything of the 原因（となる）, but what you have antecedently, not inferred, but discovered to the 十分な, in the 影響.

109. But what must a philosopher think of those vain reasoners, who, instead of regarding the 現在の scene of things as the 単独の 反対する of their contemplation, so far 逆転する the whole course of nature, as to （判決などを）下す this life 単に a passage to something さらに先に; a porch, which leads to a greater, and vastly different building; a prologue, which serves only to introduce the piece, and give it more grace and propriety? Whence, do you think, can such philosophers derive their idea of the gods? From their own conceit and imagination surely. For if they derived it from the 現在の phenomena, it would never point to anything さらに先に, but must be 正確に／まさに adjusted to them. That the divinity may かもしれない be endowed with せいにするs, which we have never seen 発揮するd; may be 治める／統治するd by 原則s of 活動／戦闘, which we cannot discover to be 満足させるd: all this will 自由に be 許すd. But still this is mere 可能性 and hypothesis. We never can have 推論する／理由 to in infer any せいにするs, or any 原則s of 活動／戦闘 in him, but so far as we know them to have been 発揮するd and 満足させるd.

Are there any 示すs of a distributive 司法（官） in the world? If you answer in the affirmative, I 結論する, that, since 司法（官） here 発揮するs itself, it is 満足させるd. If you reply in the 消極的な, I 結論する that you have then no 推論する／理由 to ascribe 司法（官）, in our sense of it, to the gods. If you 持つ／拘留する a medium between affirmation and negation, by 説, that the 司法（官） of the gods, at 現在の, 発揮するs itself in part, but not in its 十分な extent; I answer, that you have no 推論する／理由 to give it any particular extent, but only so far as you see it, at 現在の, 発揮する itself.

110. Thus I bring the 論争, O Athenians, to a short 問題／発行する with my antagonists. The course of nature lies open to my contemplation 同様に as to theirs. The experienced train of events is the 広大な／多数の／重要な 基準, by which we all 規制する our 行為／行う. Nothing else can be 控訴，上告d to in the field, or in the 上院. Nothing else ought ever to be heard of in the school, or in the closet. In vain would our 限られた／立憲的な understanding break through those 境界s, which are too 狭くする for our fond imagination. While we argue from the course of nature, and infer a particular intelligent 原因（となる）, which first bestowed, and still 保存するs order in the universe, we embrace a 原則, which is both uncertain and useless. It is uncertain; because the 支配する lies 完全に beyond the reach of human experience. It is useless; because our knowledge of this 原因（となる） 存在 derived 完全に from the course of nature, we can never, によれば the 支配するs of just 推論する／理由ing, return 支援する from the 原因（となる） with any new inference, or making 新規加入s to the ありふれた and experienced course of nature, 設立する any new 原則s of 行為／行う and behaviour.

111. I 観察する (said I, finding he had finished his harangue) that you neglect not the artifice of the demagogues of old; and as you were pleased to make me stand for the people, you insinuate yourself into my favour by embracing those 原則s, to which, you know, I have always 表明するd a particular attachment. But 許すing you to make experience (as indeed I think you ought) the only 基準 of our 裁判／判断 関心ing this, and all other questions of fact; I 疑問 not but, from the very same experience, to which you 控訴，上告, it may be possible to 反駁する this 推論する／理由ing, which you have put into the mouth of Epicurus. If you saw, for instance, a half-finished building, surrounded with heaps of brick and 石／投石する and 迫撃砲, and all the 器具s of masonry; could you not infer from the 影響 that it was a work of design and contrivance? And could you not return again, from this inferred 原因（となる）, to infer new 新規加入s to the 影響, and 結論する, that the building would soon be finished, and receive all the その上の 改良s, which art could bestow upon it? If you saw upon the sea-shore the print of one human foot, you would 結論する, that a man had passed that way, and that he had also left the traces of the other foot, though effaced by the rolling of the sands or inundation of the waters. Why then do you 辞退する to 収容する／認める the same method of 推論する／理由ing with regard to the order of nature? Consider the world and the 現在の life only as an imperfect building, from which you can infer a superior 知能; and arguing from that superior 知能, which can leave nothing imperfect; why may you not infer a more finished 計画／陰謀 or 計画（する）, which will receive its 完成 in some distant point of space or time? Are not these methods of 推論する／理由ing 正確に／まさに 類似の? And under what pretence can you embrace the one, while you 拒絶する the other?

112. The infinite difference of the 支配するs, replied he, is a 十分な 創立／基礎 for this difference in my 結論s. In 作品 of human art and contrivance, it is allowable to 前進する from the 影響 to the 原因（となる）, and returning 支援する from the 原因（となる）, to form new inferences 関心ing the 影響, and 診察する the alterations, which it has probably undergone, or may still を受ける. But what is the 創立／基礎 of this method of 推論する／理由ing? Plainly this; that man is a 存在, whom we know by experience, whose 動機s and designs we are 熟知させるd with, and whose 事業／計画（する）s and inclinations have a 確かな connexion and coherence, によれば the 法律s which nature has 設立するd for the 政府 of such a creature. When, therefore, we find, that any work has proceeded from the 技術 and 産業 of man; as we are さもなければ 熟知させるd with the nature of the animal, we can draw a hundred inferences 関心ing what may be 推定する／予想するd from him; and these inferences will all be 設立するd in experience and 観察. But did we know man only from the 選び出す／独身 work or 生産／産物 which we 診察する, it were impossible for us to argue in this manner; because our knowledge of all the 質s, which we ascribe to him, 存在 in that 事例／患者 derived from the 生産／産物, it is impossible they could point to anything さらに先に, or be the 創立／基礎 of any new inference. The print of a foot in the sand can only 証明する, when considered alone, that there was some 人物／姿／数字 adapted to it, by which it was produced: but the print of a human foot 証明するs likewise, from our other experience, that there was probably another foot, which also left its impression, though effaced by time or other 事故s. Here we 開始する from the 影響 to the 原因（となる）; and descending again from the 原因（となる）, infer alterations in the 影響; but this is not a 延長／続編 of the same simple chain of 推論する／理由ing. We comprehend in this 事例／患者 a hundred other experiences and 観察s, 関心ing the usual 人物／姿／数字 and members of that 種類 of animal, without which thi s method of argument must be considered as fallacious and sophistical.

113. The 事例／患者 is not the same with our reasonings from the 作品 of nature. The Deity is known to us only by his 生産／産物s, and is a 選び出す／独身 存在 in the universe, not comprehended under any 種類 or genus, from whose experienced せいにするs or 質s, we can, by analogy, infer any せいにする or 質 in him. As the universe shews 知恵 and goodness, we infer 知恵 and goodness. As it shews a particular degree of these perfections, we infer a particular degree of them, 正確に adapted to the 影響 which we 診察する. But さらに先に せいにするs or さらに先に degrees of the same せいにするs, we can never be authorised to infer or suppose, by any 支配するs of just 推論する／理由ing. Now, without some such licence of supposition, it is impossible for us to argue from the 原因（となる）, or infer any alteration in the 影響, beyond what has すぐに fallen under our 観察. Greater good produced by this 存在 must still 証明する a greater degree of goodness: a more impartial 配当 of rewards and 罰s must proceed from a greater regard to 司法（官） and 公正，普通株主権. Every supposed 新規加入 to the 作品 of nature makes an 新規加入 to the せいにするs of the Author of nature; and その結果, 存在 完全に unsupported by any 推論する／理由 or argument, can never be 認める but as mere conjecture and hypothesis.*
[* In general, it may, I think, be 設立するd as a maxim, that where any 原因（となる） is known only by its particular 影響s, it must be impossible to infer any new 影響s from that 原因（となる）; since the 質s, which are requisite to produce these new 影響s along with the former, must either be different, or superior, or of more 広範囲にわたる 操作／手術, than those which 簡単に produced the 影響, whence alone the 原因（となる） is supposed to be known to us. We can never, therefore, have any 推論する／理由 to suppose the 存在 of these 質s. To say, that the new 影響s proceed only from a 延長／続編 of the same energy, which is already known from the first 影響s, will not 除去する the difficulty. For even 認めるing this to be the 事例／患者 (which can seldom be supposed), the very 延長／続編 and exertion of a like energy (for it is impossible it can be 絶対 the same), I say, this exertion of a like energy, in a different period of space and time, is a very 独断的な supposition, and what there cannot かもしれない be any traces of in the 影響s, from which all our knowledge of the 原因（となる） is 初めは derived. Let the inferred 原因（となる） be 正確に／まさに 割合d (as it should be) to the known 影響; and it is impossible that it can 所有する any 質s, from which new or different 影響s can be inferred.]

The 広大な／多数の／重要な source of our mistake in this 支配する, and of the unbounded licence of conjecture, which we indulge, is, that we tacitly consider ourselves, as in the place of the 最高の 存在, and 結論する, that he will, on every occasion, 観察する the same 行為／行う, which we ourselves, in his 状況／情勢, would have embraced as reasonable and 適格の. But, besides that the ordinary course of nature may 納得させる us, that almost everything is 規制するd by 原則s and maxims very different from ours; besides this, I say, it must evidently appear contrary to all 支配するs of analogy to 推論する／理由, from the 意向s and 事業／計画（する）s of men, to those of a 存在 so different, and so much superior. In human nature, there is a 確かな experienced coherence of designs and inclinations; so that when, from any fact, we have discovered one 意向 of any man, it may often be reasonable, from experience, to infer another, and draw a long chain of 結論s 関心ing his past or 未来 行為／行う. But this method of 推論する／理由ing can never have place with regard to a 存在, so remote and 理解できない, who 耐えるs much いっそう少なく analogy to any other 存在 in the universe than the sun to a waxen 次第に減少する, and who discovers himself only by some faint traces or 輪郭（を描く）s, beyond which we have no 当局 to ascribe to him any せいにする or perfection. What we imagine to be a superior perfection, may really be a defect. Or were it ever so much a perfection, the ascribing of it to the 最高の 存在, where it appears not to have been really 発揮するd, to the 十分な, in his 作品, savours more of flattery and panegyric, than of just 推論する／理由ing and sound philosophy. All the philosophy, therefore, in the world, and all the 宗教, which is nothing but a 種類 of philosophy, will never be able to carry us beyond the usual course of experience, or give us 対策 of 行為／行う and behaviour different from those which are furnished by reflections on ありふれた life. No new fact can ever be inferred from the 宗教的な hypothesis; no event foreseen or foretold; no rewar d or 罰 推定する／予想するd or dreaded, beyond what is already known by practice and 観察. So that my 陳謝 for Epicurus will still appear solid and 満足な; nor have the political 利益／興味s of society any connexion with the philosophical 論争s 関心ing metaphysics and 宗教.

114. There is still one circumstance, replied I, which you seem to have overlooked. Though I should 許す your 前提s, I must 否定する your 結論. You 結論する, that 宗教的な doctrines and reasonings can have no 影響（力） on life, because they せねばならない have no 影響（力）; never considering, that men 推論する／理由 not in the same manner you do, but draw many consequences from the belief of a divine 存在, and suppose that the Deity will （打撃，刑罰などを）与える 罰s on 副／悪徳行為, and bestow rewards on virtue, beyond what appear in the ordinary course of nature. Whether this 推論する／理由ing of theirs be just or not, is no 事柄. Its 影響（力） on their life and 行為／行う must still be the same. And, those, who 試みる／企てる to disabuse them of such prejudices, may, for aught I know, be good reasoners, but I cannot 許す them to be good 国民s and 政治家，政治屋s; since they 解放する／自由な men from one 抑制 upon their passions, and make the 違反 of the 法律s of society, in one 尊敬（する）・点, more 平易な and 安全な・保証する.

After all, I may, perhaps, agree to your general 結論 in favour of liberty, though upon different 前提s from those, on which you endeavour to 設立する it. I think, that the 明言する／公表する せねばならない 許容する every 原則 of philosophy; nor is there an instance, that any 政府 has 苦しむd in its political 利益／興味s by such indulgence. There is no enthusiasm の中で philosophers; their doctrines are not very alluring to the people; and no 抑制 can be put upon their reasonings, but what must be of dangerous consequence to the sciences, and even to the 明言する／公表する, by 覆うing the way for 迫害 and 圧迫 in points, where the generality of mankind are more 深く，強烈に 利益／興味d and 関心d.

115. But there occurs to me (continued I) with regard to your main topic, a difficulty, which I shall just 提案する to you without 主張するing on it; lest it lead into reasonings of too nice and delicate a nature. In a word, I much 疑問 whether it be possible for a 原因（となる） to be known only by its 影響 (as you have all along supposed) or to be of so singular and particular a nature as to have no 平行の and no similarity with any other 原因（となる） or 反対する, that has ever fallen under our 観察. It is only when two 種類 of 反対するs are 設立する to be 絶えず conjoined, that we can infer the one from the other; and were an 影響 現在のd, which was 完全に singular, and could not be comprehended under any known 種類, I do not see that we could form any conjecture or inference at all 関心ing its 原因（となる）. If experience and 観察 and analogy be, indeed, the only guides which we can reasonably follow in inferences of this nature; both the 影響 and 原因（となる） must 耐える a similarity and resemblance to other 影響s and 原因（となる）s, which we know, and which we have 設立する, in many instances, to be conjoined with each other. I leave it to your own reflection to 追求する the consequences of this 原則. I shall just 観察する, that, as the antagonists of Epicurus always suppose the universe, an 影響 やめる singular and unparalleled, to be the proof of a Deity, a 原因（となる） no いっそう少なく singular and unparalleled; your reasonings, upon that supposition, seem, at least, to 長所 our attention. There is, I own, some difficulty, how we can ever return from the 原因（となる） to the 影響, and, 推論する／理由ing from our ideas of the former, infer any alteration on the latter, or any 新規加入 to it.

Sect. XII. Of the academical or 懐疑的な Philosophy

Part I.

The Sceptic is another enemy of 宗教, who 自然に 刺激するs the indignation of all divines and graver philosophers; though it is 確かな , that no man ever met with any such absurd creature, or conversed with a man, who had no opinion or 原則 関心ing any 支配する, either of 活動／戦闘 or 憶測. This begets a very natural question; What is meant by a sceptic? And how far it is possible to 押し進める these philosophical 原則s of 疑問 and 不確定?

There is a 種類 of scepticism, antecedent to all 熟考する／考慮する and philosophy, which is much inculcated by Des Cartes and others, as a 君主 preservative against error and precipitate 裁判／判断. It recommends an 全世界の／万国共通の 疑問, not only of all our former opinions and 原則s, but also of our very faculties; of whose veracity, say they, we must 保証する ourselves, by a chain of 推論する／理由ing, deduced from some 初めの 原則, which cannot かもしれない be fallacious or deceitful. But neither is there any such 初めの 原則 which has a prerogative above others, that are self-evident and 納得させるing: or if there were, could we 前進する a step beyond it, but by the use of those very faculties, of which we are supposed to be already diffident. The Cartesian 疑問, therefore, were it ever possible to be 達成するd by any human creature (as it plainly is not) would be 完全に incurable; and no 推論する／理由ing could ever bring us to a 明言する／公表する of 保証／確信 and 有罪の判決 upon any 支配する.

It must, however, be 自白するd, that this 種類 of scepticism, when more 穏健な, may be understood in a very reasonable sense, and is a necessary preparative to the 熟考する／考慮する of philosophy, by 保存するing a proper 公平さ in our 裁判／判断s, and 離乳するing our mind from all those prejudices, which we may have imbibed from education or 無分別な opinion. To begin with （疑いを）晴らす and self-evident 原則s, to 前進する by timorous and sure steps, to review frequently our 結論s, and 診察する 正確に all their consequences; though by these means we shall make both a slow and a short 進歩 in our systems; are the only methods, by which we can ever hope to reach truth, and 達成する a proper 安定 and certainty in our 決意s.

117. There is another 種類 of scepticism, consequent to science and enquiry, when men are supposed to have discovered, either the 絶対の fallaciousness of their mental faculties, or their unfitness to reach any 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 決意 in all those curious 支配するs of 憶測, about which they are 一般的に 雇うd. Even our very senses are brought into 論争, by a 確かな 種類 of philosophers; and the maxims of ありふれた life are 支配するd to the same 疑問 as the most 深遠な 原則s or 結論s of metaphysics and theology. As these paradoxical tenets (if they may be called tenets) are to be met with in some philosophers, and the refutation of them in several, they 自然に excite our curiosity, and make us enquire into the arguments, on which they may be 設立するd.

I need not 主張する upon the more trite topics, 雇うd by the sceptics in all ages, against the 証拠 of sense; such as those which are derived from the imperfection and fallaciousness of our 組織／臓器s, on numberless occasions; the crooked 外見 of an oar in water; the さまざまな 面s of 反対するs, によれば their different distances; the 二塁打 images which arise from the 圧力（をかける）ing one 注目する，もくろむ; with many other 外見s of a like nature. These 懐疑的な topics, indeed, are only 十分な to 証明する, that the senses alone are not 暗黙に to be depended on; but that we must 訂正する their 証拠 by 推論する／理由, and by considerations, derived from the nature of the medium, the distance of the 反対する, and the disposition of the 組織／臓器, ーするために （判決などを）下す them, within their sphere, the proper 基準 of truth and falsehood. There are other more 深遠な arguments against the senses, which 収容する／認める not of so 平易な a 解答.

118. It seems evident, that men are carried, by a natural instinct or prepossession, to repose 約束 in their senses; and that, without any 推論する／理由ing, or even almost before the use of 推論する／理由, we always suppose an 外部の universe, which depends not on our perception, but would 存在する, though we and every sensible creature were absent or 絶滅するd. Even the animal 創造 are 治める／統治するd by a like opinion, and 保存する this belief of 外部の 反対するs, in all their thoughts, designs, and 活動／戦闘s.

It seems also evident, that, when men follow this blind and powerful instinct of nature, they always suppose the very images, 現在のd by the senses, to be the 外部の 反対するs, and never entertain any 疑惑, that the one are nothing but 代表s of the other. This very （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する which we see white, and which we feel hard, is believed to 存在する, 独立した・無所属 of our perception, and to be something 外部の to our mind, which perceives it. Our presence bestows not 存在 on it: our absence does not 絶滅する it. It 保存するs its 存在 uniform and entire, 独立した・無所属 of the 状況／情勢 of intelligent 存在s, who perceive or 熟視する／熟考する it.

But this 全世界の／万国共通の and 最初の／主要な opinion of all men is soon destroyed by the slightest philosophy, which teaches us, that nothing can ever be 現在の to the mind but an image or perception, and that the senses are only the inlets, through which these images are 伝えるd, without 存在 able to produce any 即座の intercourse between the mind and the 反対する. The （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する, which we see, seems to 減らす, as we 除去する さらに先に from it: but the real （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する, which 存在するs 独立した・無所属 of us, 苦しむs no alteration: it was, therefore, nothing but its image, which was 現在の to the mind. These are the obvious dictates of 推論する／理由; and no man, who 反映するs, ever 疑問d, that the 存在s, which we consider, when we say, this house and that tree, are nothing but perceptions in the mind, and (n)艦隊／(a)素早いing copies or 代表s of other 存在s, which remain uniform and 独立した・無所属.

119. So far, then, are we necessitated by 推論する／理由ing to 否定する or 出発／死 from the 最初の／主要な instincts of nature, and to embrace a new system with regard to the 証拠 of our senses. But here philosophy finds herself 極端に embarrassed, when she would 正当化する this new system, and obviate the cavils and 反対s of the sceptics. She can no longer 嘆願d the infallible and irresistible instinct of nature: for that led us to a やめる different system, which is 定評のある fallible and even erroneous. And to 正当化する this pretended philosophical system, by a chain of （疑いを）晴らす and 納得させるing argument, or even any 外見 of argument, 越えるs the 力／強力にする of all human capacity.

By what argument can it be 証明するd, that the perceptions of the mind must be 原因（となる）d by 外部の 反対するs, 完全に different from them, though 似ているing them (if that be possible) and could not arise either from the energy of the mind itself, or from the suggestion of some invisible and unknown spirit, or from some other 原因（となる） still more unknown to us? It is 定評のある, that, in fact, many of these perceptions arise not from anything 外部の, as in dreams, madness, and other 病気s. And nothing can be more inexplicable than the manner, in which 団体／死体 should so operate upon mind as ever to 伝える an image of itself to a 実体, supposed of so different, and even contrary a nature.

It is a question of fact, whether the perceptions of the senses be produced by 外部の 反対するs, 似ているing them: how shall this question be 決定するd? By experience surely; as all other questions of a like nature. But here experience is, and must be 完全に silent. The mind has never anything 現在の to it but the perceptions, and cannot かもしれない reach any experience of their connexion with 反対するs. The supposition of such a connexion is, therefore, without any 創立／基礎 in 推論する／理由ing.

120. To have 頼みの綱 to the veracity of the 最高の 存在, ーするために 証明する the veracity of our senses, is surely making a very 予期しない 回路・連盟. If his veracity were at all 関心d in this 事柄, our senses would be 完全に infallible; because it is not possible that he can ever deceive. Not to について言及する, that, if the 外部の world be once called in question, we shall be at a loss to find arguments, by which we may 証明する the 存在 of that 存在 or any of his せいにするs.

121. This is a topic, therefore, in which the profounder and more philosophical sceptics will always 勝利, when they endeavour to introduce an 全世界の／万国共通の 疑問 into all 支配するs of human knowledge and enquiry. Do you follow the instincts and propensities of nature, may they say, in assenting to the veracity of sense? But these lead you to believe that the very perception or sensible image is the 外部の 反対する. Do you disclaim this 原則, ーするために embrace a more 合理的な／理性的な opinion, that the perceptions are only 代表s of something 外部の? You here 出発／死 from your natural propensities and more obvious 感情s; and yet are not able to 満足させる your 推論する／理由, which can never find any 納得させるing argument from experience to 証明する, that the perceptions are connected with any 外部の 反対するs.

122. There is another 懐疑的な topic of a like nature, derived from the most 深遠な philosophy; which might 長所 our attention, were it requisite to dive so 深い, ーするために discover arguments and reasonings, which can so little serve to any serious 目的. It is universally 許すd by modern enquirers, that all the sensible 質s of 反対するs, such as hard, soft, hot, 冷淡な, white, 黒人／ボイコット, &c. are 単に 第２位, and 存在する not in the 反対するs themselves, but are perceptions of the mind, without any 外部の archetype or model, which they 代表する. If this be 許すd, with regard to 第２位 質s, it must also follow, with regard to the supposed 最初の／主要な 質s of 拡張 and solidity; nor can the latter be any more する権利を与えるd to that denomination than the former. The idea of 拡張 is 完全に acquired from the senses of sight and feeling; and if all the 質s, perceived by the senses, be in the mind, not in the 反対する, the same 結論 must reach the idea of 拡張 which is wholly 扶養家族 on the sensible ideas or the ideas of 第２位 質s. Nothing can save us from this 結論, but the 主張するing, that the ideas of those 最初の／主要な 質s are 達成するd by Abstraction, an opinion, which, if we 診察する it 正確に, we shall find to be unintelligible, and even absurd. An 拡張, that is neither 有形の nor 明白な, cannot かもしれない be conceived: and a 有形の or 明白な 拡張, which is neither hard nor soft, 黒人／ボイコット nor white, is 平等に beyond the reach of human conception. Let any man try to conceive a triangle in general, which is neither Isosceles nor Scalenum, nor has any particular length or 割合 of 味方するs; and he will soon perceive the absurdity of all the scholastic notions with regard to abstraction and general ideas.*
[* This argument is drawn from Dr. Berkeley; and indeed most of the writings of that very ingenious author form the best lessons of scepticism which are to be 設立する either の中で the 古代の or modern philosophers, Bayle not excepted. He professes, however, in his 肩書を与える page (and undoubtedly with 広大な／多数の／重要な truth) to have composed his 調書をとる／予約する against the sceptics 同様に as against the atheists and 解放する／自由な-thinkers. But that all his arguments, though さもなければ ーするつもりであるd, are, in reality, 単に 懐疑的な, appears from this, that they 収容する／認める of no answer and produce no 有罪の判決. Their only 影響 is to 原因（となる） that momentary amazement and irresolution and 混乱, which is the result of scepticism.]

123. Thus the first philosophical 反対 to the 証拠 of sense or to the opinion of 外部の 存在 consists in this, that such an opinion, if 残り／休憩（する）d on natural instinct, is contrary to 推論する／理由, and if referred to 推論する／理由, is contrary to natural instinct, and at the same time carries no 合理的な／理性的な 証拠 with it, to 納得させる an impartial enquirer. The second 反対 goes さらに先に, and 代表するs this opinion as contrary to 推論する／理由: at least, if it be a 原則 of 推論する／理由, that all sensible 質s are in the mind, not in the 反対する. （死が）奪い去る 事柄 of all its intelligible 質s, both 最初の／主要な and 第２位, you in a manner 絶滅する it, and leave only a 確かな unknown, inexplicable something, as the 原因（となる） of our perceptions; a notion so imperfect, that no sceptic will think it 価値（がある） while to 競う against it.

Part II.

The 長，指導者 反対 against all abstract reasonings is derived from the ideas of space and time; ideas, which, in ありふれた life and to a careless 見解（をとる）, are very （疑いを）晴らす and intelligible, but when they pass through the scrutiny of the 深遠な sciences (and they are the 長，指導者 反対する of these sciences) afford 原則s, which seem 十分な of absurdity and contradiction. No priestly dogmas, invented on 目的 to tame and subdue the 反抗的な 推論する／理由 of mankind, ever shocked ありふれた sense more than the doctrine of the infinitive divisibility of 拡張, with its consequences; as they are pompously 陳列する，発揮するd by all geometricians and metaphysicians, with a 肉親，親類d of 勝利 and exultation. A real 量, infinitely いっそう少なく than any finite 量, 含む／封じ込めるing 量s infinitely いっそう少なく than itself, and so on in infinitum; this is an edifice so bold and prodigious, that it is too 重大な for any pretended demonstration to support, because it shocks the clearest and most natural 原則s of human 推論する／理由.* But what （判決などを）下すs the 事柄 more 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の, is, that these seemingly absurd opinions are supported by a chain of 推論する／理由ing, the clearest and most natural; nor is it possible for us to 許す the 前提s without admitting the consequences. Nothing can be more 納得させるing and 満足な than all the 結論s 関心ing the 所有物／資産／財産s of circles and triangles; and yet, when these are once received, how can we 否定する, that the angle of 接触する between a circle and its tangent is infinitely いっそう少なく than any rectilineal angle, that as you may 増加する the 直径 of the circle in infinitum, this angle of 接触する becomes still いっそう少なく, even in infinitum, and that the angle of 接触する between other curves and their tangents may be infinitely いっそう少なく than those between any circle and its tangent, and so on, in infinitum? The demonstration of these 原則s seems as unexceptionable as that which 証明するs the three angles of a triangle to be equal to two 権利 ones, though the latter opinion be natural and 平易な, and the former big with contradiction and absurdity. 推論する／理由 here seems to be thrown into a 肉親，親類d of amazement and suspence, which, without the suggestions of any sceptic, gives her a diffidence of herself, and of the ground on which she treads. She sees a 十分な light, which illuminates 確かな places; but that light 国境s upon the most 深遠な 不明瞭. And between these she is so dazzled and confounded, that she scarcely can pronounce with certainty and 保証／確信 関心ing any one 反対する.
[* Whatever 論争s there may be about mathematical points, we must 許す that there are physical points; that is, parts of 拡張, which cannot be divided or 少なくなるd, either by the 注目する，もくろむ or imagination. These images, then, which are 現在の to the fancy or senses, are 絶対 indivisible, and その結果 must be 許すd by mathematicians to be infinitely いっそう少なく than any real part of 拡張; and yet nothing appears more 確かな to 推論する／理由, than that an infinite number of them composes an infinite 拡張. How much more an infinite number of those infinitely small parts of 拡張, which are still supposed infinitely divisible.]

125. The absurdity of these bold 決意s of the abstract sciences seems to become, if possible, still more palpable with regard to time than 拡張. An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose 裁判／判断 is not corrupted, instead of 存在 改善するd, by the sciences, would ever be able to 収容する／認める of it.

Yet still 推論する／理由 must remain restless, and unquiet, even with regard to that scepticism, to which she is driven by these seeming absurdities and contradictions. How any （疑いを）晴らす, 際立った idea can 含む／封じ込める circumstances, contradictory to itself, or to any other （疑いを）晴らす, 際立った idea, is 絶対 理解できない; and is, perhaps, as absurd as any proposition, which can be formed. So that nothing can be more 懐疑的な, or more 十分な of 疑問 and hesitation, than this scepticism itself, which arises from some of the paradoxical 結論s of geometry or the science of 量.*
[* It seems to me not impossible to 避ける these absurdities and contradictions, if it be 認める, that there is no such thing as abstract or general ideas, 適切に speaking; but that all general ideas are, in reality, particular ones, 大（公）使館員d to a general 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語, which 解任するs, upon occasion, other particular ones, that 似ている, in 確かな circumstances, the idea, 現在の to the mind. Thus when the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 Horse is pronounced, we すぐに 人物／姿／数字 to ourselves the idea of a 黒人／ボイコット or a white animal, of a particular size or 人物／姿／数字: But as that 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 is also usually 適用するd to animals of other colours, 人物／姿／数字s and sizes, these ideas, though not 現実に 現在の to the imagination, are easily 解任するd; and our 推論する／理由ing and 結論 proceed in the same way, as if they were 現実に 現在の. If this be 認める (as seems reasonable) it follows that all the ideas of 量, upon which mathematicians 推論する／理由, are nothing but particular, and such as are 示唆するd by the senses and imagination, and その結果, cannot be infinitely divisible. It is 十分な to have dropped this hint at 現在の, without 起訴するing it any さらに先に. It certainly 関心s all lovers of science not to expose themselves to the ridicule and contempt of the ignorant by their 結論s; and this seems the readiest 解答 of these difficulties.]

126. The 懐疑的な 反対s to moral 証拠, or to the reasonings 関心ing 事柄 of fact, are either popular or philosophical. The popular 反対s are derived from the natural 証拠不十分 of human understanding; the contradictory opinions, which have been entertained in different ages and nations; the variations of our 裁判／判断 in sickness and health, 青年 and old age, 繁栄 and adversity; the perpetual contradiction of each particular man's opinions and 感情s; with many other topics of that 肉親，親類d. It is needless to 主張する さらに先に on this 長，率いる. These 反対s are but weak. For as, in ありふれた life, we 推論する／理由 every moment 関心ing fact and 存在, and cannot かもしれない subsist, without continually 雇うing this 種類 of argument, any popular 反対s, derived from thence, must be insufficient to destroy that 証拠. The 広大な／多数の／重要な subverter of Pyrrhonism or the 過度の 原則s of scepticism is 活動／戦闘, and 雇用, and the 占領／職業s of ありふれた life. These 原則s may 繁栄する and 勝利 in the schools; where it is, indeed, difficult, if not impossible, to 反駁する them. But as soon as they leave the shade, and by the presence of the real 反対するs, which actuate our passions and 感情s, are put in 対立 to the more powerful 原則s of our nature, they 消える like smoke, and leave the most 決定するd sceptic in the same 条件 as other mortals.

127. The sceptic, therefore, had better keep within his proper sphere, and 陳列する，発揮する those philosophical 反対s, which arise from more 深遠な 研究s. Here he seems to have ample 事柄 of 勝利; while he 正確に，正当に 主張するs, that all our 証拠 for any 事柄 of fact, which lies beyond the 証言 of sense or memory, is derived 完全に from the relation of 原因（となる） and 影響; that we have no other idea of this relation than that of two 反対するs, which have been frequently conjoined together; that we have no argument to 納得させる us, that 反対するs, which have, in our experience, been frequently conjoined, will likewise, in other instances, be conjoined in the same manner; and that nothing leads us to this inference but custom or a 確かな instinct of our nature; which it is indeed difficult to resist, but which, like other instincts, may be fallacious and deceitful. While the sceptic 主張するs upon these topics, he shows his 軍隊, or rather, indeed, his own and our 証拠不十分; and seems, for the time at least, to destroy all 保証／確信 and 有罪の判決. These arguments might be 陳列する，発揮するd at greater length, if any 持続する good or 利益 to society could ever be 推定する／予想するd to result from them.

128. For here is the 長，指導者 and most confounding 反対 to 過度の scepticism, that no 持続する good can ever result from it; while it remains in its 十分な 軍隊 and vigour. We need only ask such a sceptic, What his meaning is? And what he 提案するs by all these curious 研究s? He is すぐに at a loss, and knows not what to answer. A Copernican or Ptolemaic, who supports each his different system of astronomy, may hope to produce a 有罪の判決, which will remain constant and 持続する, with his audience. A Stoic or Epicurean 陳列する，発揮するs 原則s, which may not be 持続する, but which have an 影響 on 行為／行う and behaviour. But a Pyrrhonian cannot 推定する／予想する, that his philosophy will have any constant 影響（力） on the mind: or if it had, that its 影響（力） would be 有益な to society. On the contrary, he must 認める, if he will 認める anything, that all human life must 死なせる／死ぬ, were his 原則s universally and 刻々と to 勝つ／広く一帯に広がる. All discourse, all 活動／戦闘 would すぐに 中止する; and men remain in a total lethargy, till the necessities of nature, unsatisfied, put an end to their 哀れな 存在. It is true; so 致命的な an event is very little to be dreaded. Nature is always too strong for 原則. And though a Pyrrhonian may throw himself or others into a momentary amazement and 混乱 by his 深遠な reasonings; the first and most trivial event in life will put to flight all his 疑問s and scruples, and leave him the same, in every point of 活動／戦闘 and 憶測, with the philosophers of every other sect, or with those who never 関心d themselves in any philosophical 研究s. When he awakes from his dream, he will be the first to join in the laugh against himself, and to 自白する, that all his 反対s are mere amusement, and can have no other 傾向 than to show the whimsical 条件 of mankind, who must 行為／法令／行動する and 推論する／理由 and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to 満足させる themselves 関心ing the 創立／基礎 of these 操作／手術s, or t o 除去する the 反対s, which may be raised against them.

Part III.

130. Another 種類 of mitigated scepticism which may be of advantage to mankind, and which may be the natural result of the Pyrrhonian 疑問s and scruples, is the 制限 of our enquiries to such 支配するs as are best adapted to the 狭くする capacity of human understanding. The imagination of man is 自然に sublime, delighted with whatever is remote and 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の, and running, without 支配（する）／統制する, into the most distant parts of space and time ーするために 避ける the 反対するs, which custom has （判決などを）下すd too familiar to it. A 訂正する 裁判／判断 観察するs a contrary method, and 避けるing all distant and high enquiries, 限定するs itself to ありふれた life, and to such 支配するs as 落ちる under daily practice and experience; leaving the more sublime topics to the embellishment of poets and orators, or to the arts of priests and 政治家，政治屋s. To bring us to so salutary a 決意, nothing can be more serviceable, than to be once 完全に 納得させるd of the 軍隊 of the Pyrrhonian 疑問, and of the impossibility, that anything, but the strong 力／強力にする of natural instinct, could 解放する／自由な us from it. Those who have a propensity to philosophy, will still continue their 研究s; because they 反映する, that, besides the 即座の 楽しみ, …に出席するing such an 占領／職業, philosophical 決定／判定勝ち（する）s are nothing but the reflections of ありふれた life, methodized and 訂正するd. But they will never be tempted to go beyond ありふれた life, so long as they consider the imperfection of those faculties which they 雇う, their 狭くする reach, and their 不確かの 操作／手術s. While we cannot give a 満足な 推論する／理由, why we believe, after a thousand 実験s, that a 石／投石する will 落ちる, or 解雇する／砲火／射撃 燃やす; can we ever 満足させる ourselves 関心ing any 決意, which we may form, with regard to the origin of worlds, and the 状況／情勢 of nature, from, and to eternity?

This 狭くする 制限, indeed, of our enquiries, is, in every 尊敬（する）・点, so reasonable, that it 十分であるs to make the slightest examination into the natural 力／強力にするs of the human mind and to compare them with their 反対するs, ーするために recommend it to us. We shall then find what are the proper 支配するs of science and enquiry.

131. It seems to me, that the only 反対するs of the abstract science or of demonstration are 量 and number, and that all 試みる／企てるs to 延長する this more perfect 種類 of knowledge beyond these bounds are mere sophistry and illusion. As the 構成要素 parts of 量 and number are 完全に 類似の, their relations become intricate and 伴う／関わるd; and nothing can be more curious, 同様に as useful, than to trace, by a variety of mediums, their equality or 不平等, through their different 外見s. But as all other ideas are 明確に 際立った and different from each other, we can never 前進する さらに先に, by our 最大の scrutiny, than to 観察する this 多様制, and, by an obvious reflection, pronounce one thing not to be another. Or if there be any difficulty in these 決定／判定勝ち（する）s, it proceeds 完全に from the undeterminate meaning of words, which is 訂正するd by juster 鮮明度／定義s. That the square of the hypothenuse is equal to the squares of the other two 味方するs, cannot be known, let the 条件 be ever so 正確に／まさに defined, without a train of 推論する／理由ing and enquiry. But to 納得させる us of this proposition, that where there is no 所有物／資産／財産, there can be no 不正, it is only necessary to define the 条件, and explain 不正 to be a 違反 of 所有物／資産／財産. This proposition is, indeed, nothing but a more imperfect 鮮明度／定義. It is the same 事例／患者 with all those pretended syllogistical reasonings, which may be 設立する in every other 支店 of learning, except the sciences of 量 and number; and these may 安全に, I think, be pronounced the only proper 反対するs of knowledge and demonstration.

132. All other enquiries of men regard only 事柄 of fact and 存在; and these are evidently incapable of demonstration. Whatever is may not be. No negation of a fact can 伴う／関わる a contradiction. The 非，不，無-存在 of any 存在, without exception, is as （疑いを）晴らす and 際立った an idea as its 存在. The proposition, which 断言するs it not to be, however 誤った, is no いっそう少なく 考えられる and intelligible, than that which 断言するs it to be. The 事例／患者 is different with the sciences, 適切に so called. Every proposition, which is not true, is there 混乱させるd and unintelligible. That the cube root of 64 is equal to the half of 10, is a 誤った proposition, and can never be distinctly conceived. But that Caesar, or the angel Gabriel, or any 存在 never 存在するd, may be a 誤った proposition, but still is perfectly 考えられる, and 暗示するs no contradiction.

The 存在, therefore, of any 存在 can only be 証明するd by arguments from its 原因（となる） or its 影響; and these arguments are 設立するd 完全に on experience. If we 推論する／理由 a priori, anything may appear able to produce anything. The 落ちるing of a pebble may, for aught we know, 消滅させる the sun; or the wish of a man 支配（する）／統制する the 惑星s in their 軌道s. It is only experience, which teaches us the nature and bounds of 原因（となる） and 影響, and enables us to infer the 存在 of one 反対する from that of another.* Such is the 創立／基礎 of moral 推論する／理由ing, which forms the greater part of human knowledge, and is the source of all human 活動／戦闘 and behaviour.
[* That impious maxim of the 古代の philosophy, Ex nihilo, nihil fit, by which the 創造 of 事柄 was 除外するd, 中止するs to be a maxim, によれば this philosophy. Not only the will of the 最高の 存在 may create 事柄; but, for aught we know a priori, the will of any other 存在 might create it, or any other 原因（となる）, that the most whimsical imagination can 割り当てる.]

Moral reasonings are either 関心ing particular or general facts. All 審議s in life regard the former; as also all disquisitions in history, chronology, 地理学, and astronomy.

The sciences, which 扱う／治療する of general facts, are politics, natural philosophy, physic, chemistry, &c. where the 質s, 原因（となる）s and 影響s of a whole 種類 of 反対するs are enquired into.

Divinity or Theology, as it 証明するs the 存在 of a Deity, and the immortality of souls, is composed partly of reasonings 関心ing particular, partly 関心ing general facts. It has a 創立／基礎 in 推論する／理由, so far as it is supported by experience. But its best and most solid 創立／基礎 is 約束 and divine 発覚.

Morals and 批評 are not so 適切に 反対するs of the understanding as of taste and 感情. Beauty, whether moral or natural, is felt, more 適切に than perceived. Or if we 推論する／理由 関心ing it, and 努力する to 直す／買収する，八百長をする its 基準, we regard a new fact, to wit, the general tastes of mankind, or some such fact, which may be the 反対する of 推論する／理由ing and enquiry.

When we run over libraries, 説得するd of these 原則s, what havoc must we make? If we take in our 手渡す any 容積／容量; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it 含む／封じ込める any abstract 推論する／理由ing 関心ing 量 or number? No. Does it 含む／封じ込める any 実験の 推論する／理由ing 関心ing 事柄 of fact and 存在? No. Commit it then to the 炎上s: for it can 含む／封じ込める nothing but sophistry and illusion.

The End