Chapter 2 is on Whately’s critique of Hume’s attack on miracles, and how far it was successful. Here I try to show that Whately’s critique was aimed at two main Humean notions which underlie Hume’s attack on miracles: (1) that the only justification for belief in matters of fact is experience or observation, rather than testimony; and (2) that the meaning of the term ‘miracle’ is an event that is improbable, rather than supernatural. Whately’s showing that (1) and (2) are mistaken forms the basis of his conclusion that Hume’s attack on miracles is as absurd as Whately’s (ironic) argument that Napoleon’s existence can be doubted.