reason to exert themselves to the utmost, to stem the torrent of vice, and to support the interests of virtue, which humanly speaking are so weak. § 20. 3. There seems a great deal of reason to suspect, that mankind is degenerated from some better state, in which it may be supposed the race first came out of the hands of so holy and good a being as the blessed God is: and accordingly, we may observe among some ancient as well as modern nations remarkable traditions on that head, which will be more fully considered hereafter 2: § 21. 4. Some further discoveries from the divine being seem very desirable, to lead us into the paths of more perfect virtue and happiness: but the fuller discussion of this will be the business of the next part of this work *. a HOWE, vol. i. p. 150, 151. Cyrus's Trav. part ii. Ap. p. 93-99. *It is not of small importance to be master of what the ancients have written no ethical subjects; in which view ARISTOTLE, PLATO, XENOPHON, CEBES, CICERO, SENECA, EPICTETUS, MARCUS ANTONINUS, and PLUTARCH well deserve to be closely studied. K. THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL EVIDENCE WITH WHICH WE LECT CI. Theology-Miracles. § 1. Def. THEOLOGY HEOLOGY or DIVINITY is that branch of Pneumatology, which relates in general to the knowledge of God, but especially to those extraordinary discoveries which he is supposed to have made of himself to mankind; and considers the probability, the certainty, and the contents of them. § 2. Schol. Forasmuch as miracles are generally urged in proof of such extraordinary discoveries, it seems proper here to enquire into the nature, use and importance of them. 3. Def. When such effects are produced, as (cæteris paribus) are usually produced, God is said to operate according to the common course of nature: but when such effects are produced, as are (cet. par.) contrary to, or different from that common course, they are said to be MIRACULOUS. § 4. Cor. 1. Nothing can be known to be miraculous, till the course of nature has been observed. $5. 2. If two opposite effects (cet. par.) were to be alternately produced, neither of them would be properly miraculous; but the alternate succession of both would make up the course of nature: v. g. if the sun were to arise one morning in the east, and the next in the west. §6. 3. When the course of nature can be but imperfectly known, in particular instances we may be incapable of pro a CONYB. on Mir. P. 6--12. FLEETW. on Mir. p. 2-5. CLARKE at BOYLE's Lect. p. 374-376. CLARKE and LEIBNITZ, p. 89. 17. p. 113. § 43-46. p. 149. § 43-46. nouncing in many respects concerning certain remarkable events, whether they be or be not miraculous. § 7. 4. A miracle contains no greater exercise of divine power, than an operation according to the course of nature". § 8. 5. Miracles are possible in general, (§ 7.) and possible in any given instance, when the wisdom of God does not require that the course of nature should be preserved; which it is impossible for us to know that it always does. It has indeed been asserted, that it is most honourable to God to suppose that he at first lays down the best possible laws, from which therefore it would be a defect of wisdom to deviate. But it may be answered, that at least for any thing we know, the best possible scheme may be that, in which there shall be some deviation from the stated rules, provided always that those stated laws be generally so far observed, as that men may know what it is their duty to do, and what consequences are generally to be expected from their actions, which is apparently the case. 9. Prop. To consider some other definitions which celebrated writers have given of miracles. § 10. Sol. 1. Mr. LOCKE defines a miracle to be "a sensible operation, which being above the comprehension of the spectator, is in his opinion contrary to the course of nature, and taken by him to be divine." But on this account of the matter, every juggling trick, which I cannot understand, will, while my ignorance continues, be a miracle to me. In answer to this, LOCKE urges, that if this definition be not taken, we can never know what a miracle is; because no man is acquainted with the whole course of nature. But though we acknowledge that great part of it is unknown, yet so much may be known, as that some instances may plainly appear to be above it: v. g. recovering the sight of the blind, or the life of the dead by a word speaking, or multiplying bread, so that one loaf should serve a thousand men, and more be left at last than there was at first.-Besides this, the extraordinary works apprehended to be done by evil agents, would not be miracles on this definition. § 11. 2. Many others define a miracle to be "an extraor 2 CLARKE at BOYLE's Lect. p. 371. Lect. p. 376, 377. CONYB. Serm. on Mir. p. 12-17. BUTLER'S Anal. part ii. c. 1. MACKNIGHT's Truth of the Gospel History, c. iv. 2. CAMPBELL on Miracles, parti. PRICES's Dissert. No. iv. HARTLEY on Man, vol. i. Prop. 23. HUME's Ess. No. x. DOUGLAS's Criterion. C LOCKE'S Posth. Pieces, p. 217-220. dinary operation, above the power of all created beings, and performable by God alone. But this definition either goes on the false supposition of such a proper agency in the creature, as is inconsistent with Lect. 35. § 5. or else supposes, contrary to fact, that we know the utmost limits of the power of created agents, allowing that to be called their power, which is usually communicated to thema. § 12. 3. Dr. CHANDLER says, " a miracle is an action done, or an operation visibly performed by any being, which is really and truly above the reach, natural power and capacity of that being who does it of himself, and without the assistance of some superior agent to perform." §13. This definition seems liable to the following objections. (1.) It supposes created beings capable of doing something of themselves, and without the assistance of any superior agent, contrary to Lect. 35. § 5. (2.) It makes it impossible for God to perform a miracle, without the interposition of some creature. (3.) It supposes it would be no miracle for God to send an angel to relieve a starving man, to open the prison-doors, or even to roll back the sun in his course, supposing I know the angel so employed to be ordinarily capable of producing such an effect; whereas in truth here would be a miracle, in suffering an angel in such a manner to act out of his usual sphere, though not beyond his common strength". §14. Dr. HUTCHESON's definition, "that it is a work far exceeding human power, yet performed by the command or upon the volition of a man," nearly coincides with this of Dr. CHANDLER'S, and is equally liable to the second and third objection. § 13. 15. 4. Dr. CLARKE'S definition of what he calls a theological miracle, includes several particulars in it, which may more properly be examined hereafter. 16. According to Dr. SYKES, "a miracle is a designed effect, sensible, unusual in itself, beyond the art and power of man to do:" and he expressly declares against defining it, an event contrary to the course of nature. a LIMB. Theol. 1. i. c. ii. @ 17. CHANDLER of Mir. p. 11-13. CLARKE at BOYLE'S Lect. P. 372-374. b CHANDLER of Mir. p. 13-19. c HUTCHES. Metaph. Synops. p. 89. § 17. But to this it may be objected, (1.) That if he does not by the word unusual, mean as much as beyond the course of nature, its being unusual is of no importance at all to prove any thing miraculous, as in the instance of the first parhelion. (2.) If by sensible be meant something made known in consequence of a sensation excited by external objects, distinguished from the inward perception of impressions upon our minds, it is no way essential to constituting a miracle. (3.) That the expression of designed is either superfluous or improper; since considering it as the work of God, every thing is designed; and if it might happen without human design, it might still be miraculous; as if health should unexpectedly be restored, while another person was praying for ita. 18. 6. Dr. CHAPMAN defines it, "an unusual and sensible event, most evidently either in the nature or manner of it, above the power of all natural material causes, and the art of man to produce." §19. To this it may be objected, (1.) Against the words sensible and unusual, as in the last step, § 17. (2.) That an event may really be a true miracle, though it is not most evidently so. (3.) That is seems to intimate a distinction between natural and supernatural material causes; not to urge that a material cause can only be a passive power, nor to insist upon it, that it may be questioned, whether dreams be not miracles upon this supposition: so that here as well as in other instances, what is superadded to our definition appears to be an incumbrance rather than an advantage. a SYKES of Mirac. P. 16-28, Ib CHAPMAN's Eus. vol. i. p. 72-76*. *The question concerning the nature of miracles is treated of with great ability in Mr. FARMER'S Preliminary Considerations, in his Dissertation on Miracles, p. 1-51. The design of the whole work is to prove that miracles are never effected without a divine interposition. K. |