Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	account_n	divine_a	great_a	208	4	2.0717	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29780	Miracles, work's above and contrary to nature, or, An answer to a late translation out of Spinoza's Tractatus theologico-politicus, Mr. Hobbs's Leviathan, &c. published to undermine the truth and authority of miracles, Scripture, and religion, in a treatise entituled, Miracles no violation of the laws of nature.	Browne, Thomas, 1654?-1741.	1683 (1683)	Wing B5062; ESTC R1298	42,132	76

Question properly admits 2. That his Argument as it proceeds upon his own Principles terminates directly in flat Atheisme or Idolatry 3. That setting aside his own Principles his Argument may in some sense be true and yet not infer the truth of his Conclusion 1. He takes the Word Nature in another sense than this Question properly admits By Nature as I shewed above is meant here the whole aggregate and compages of Bodies in the World and the Order wherein they act amongst one another In this sense therefore Spinoza must be presumed to prove That nothing happens contrary to Nature which whether he does or no will immediately appear In the Conclusion of this first Argument to these Words Nihil igitur in Naturâ contingit quod ipsius Legibus universalibus repugnat c. He subjoyns this Marginal Note N. B. me hîc per Naturam non intelligere solam materiam ejusque affectiones sed praeter materiam alia infinita The Translator I confess has it not whether omitted as impertinent only or as that which would too openly discover the weakness of his reasoning I do not determine but I shall take leave to consider what he has as Spinoza's and not his own Now if Spinoza take the Word Nature in so great a Latitude as to understand by it an infinite number of other things besides Matter he may find it pretty easie to reduce all things within its compass and if he make the Laws of Nature in his sense of so great extent it may be hard for any thing not to fall within their Circuit and Jurisdiction but then the Philosopher's way of Arguing will be as much beside the Question as a Miracle is beside Nature The Schoolmen where they treat of Laws make the first division of them into the Eternal Law and those that are derived from it The Eternal two-fold 1. The Order whereby God eternally decreed to do all things 2. The Order which he decreed to prescribe to his Creatures to be observed by them according to their several Natures and Conditions The latter is branched out in these particulars the Law of Natural Agents of Angels and Men and this either the Law of Natural Reason Divine Revelation or Humane Institution This second Eternal Law and the branches of it are such as that the several Agents to whom they were given may swerve from and not Act in a constant and uniform obedience to them So the Angels first violated their Law then Mankind theirs as they daily do all Laws Natural and Positive Divine and Humane The natural Agents indeed as not endued with freedom of Will observe one constant Order and Tenor if left to themselves yet may either cease to Act or Act otherwise if God in his eternal purpose think fit to interpose who can then either suspend their Operations or determine them to act beyond their Sphere beside their usual course and contrary to their natural tendencies and the Laws of their Motion But the first Eternal Laws is of universal extent and holds inviolably Nothing can fall out beside above or contrary to it It directs to its own grand purposes whatever strayes from the particular Laws of its Creation draws good out of evil and makes all Events conspire to the setting forth of the Glory of God It ordains the sins of lapsed Angels and Men to the irrevokable Damnation of the first and the Redemption of the latter by the most surprizing and mysterious Methods of love and mercy It provides for a suppliment to the lost or decayed light of Nature the Revelations of Law and Gospel by Moses and the Prophets our blessed Saviour and his Apostles and to attest their Divine Authority and Mission ordains Nature to act above or contrary to her self by an obediential Power The same eternal Act of the Divine Counsel decreeing the production of miraculous Effects upon emergent occasions which first determined into Act the whole Frame and Order of Nature We see here an Vniversal Law from whence all things follow and contrary to which nothing does or can fall out An Order eternal fixt and immutable set down with himself by that Supream being who worketh all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by this he hath appointed times for Miraculous and Supernatural Effects as well as this lasting Period for the constant and settled operations of Nature If this be Spinoza's Law of Nature where he extends the Signification of that Word infinitely beyond the compass of the material World and the order whereby Natural Bodies act therein his Proposition may be true That nothing falls out contrary to Nature but Nature keeps an eternal fixt and immutable Order But then 1. He takes the Word Nature in a different sense from all the World besides 2. Wholely leaves the Question about the possibility of Miracles that being consistent with the Truth of his Proposition if taken in that sense And I wish his sense were so Orthodox as this I have hinted and that all his fault were only that he has mistaken the state of the Question and the meaning of the Terms of it But it will appear far otherwise when we come to examine upon what Principles his Argument proceeds His Argument is this The Laws of Nature are the Decrees of God and therefore involve eternal necessity and truth Ergo nothing can fall out contrary to Nature but Nature keeps an eternal fixt and immutable Order The ground of the Argument lies in this That whatever God Wills or Decrees involves eternal necessity and truth For the proof whereof Spinoza referrs us to his Fourth Chapter The Argument which he brings for it there is drawn from the Identity 〈◊〉 the Divine Will and Vnderstanding and it proceeds thus All the difference between the Understanding and Will of God is he says onely in our conception and that in this manner We conceive God to understand any thing as for instance the Nature of a Triangle when we regard only this That the Nature v. c. of a Triangle is contained eternally in the Divine Nature as an eternal Truth We conceive God to will the same thing when we regard this farther That the Nature v. c. of a Triangle is so contained in the Divine not upon account of the necessity of the nature of a Triangle it self but upon account of the necessity of the Divine Nature and that all the necessity of the nature of a Triangle and its properties as they are conceived as eternal Truths depends not upon the necessity of its own Nature but the Divine So that for God to Will or Decree any thing is for the same to be contained necessarily in the Divine Nature by reason of the necessity of it as an eternal truth And therefore Whatever God wills or decrees involves eternal truth and necessity This is his Principle which he borrows from his Fourth Chapter and we see it is grounded upon a particular Notion which he had

Saviour to the Eyes of the Blind and Tongue of the Dumb-man The mention whereof in the account of these Miracles if it prove that they required Natural Causes then these were the Causes requisite these they had and these immediately produced the Effects This they could not by the force of Nature therefore by Miracle and so his Argument destroys it self But farther what if many are produced without any Circumstances at all but purely at the Word and Will of the person that works them This he says we cannot be assured of from the Scripture because there may have been some though not mentioned there he refers to Exod. 14.27 compared with Ex. 15.10 But what if the Scripture does not only not make mention of any but in a manner declares there were none So in our Saviours stilling the Storm the very Reflection that his Disciples make upon that Miracle proves that it was wrought by his bare Word and not by the Application of any Means much less Natural Before he draws his Conclusion from these Arguments he answers an Objection from Scripture viz. That Famins are said to be caused by the sins of Men and the like and Rain and Plenty restored by their Prayers c. His Answer is that the Scripture does here speak ad hominem and with the same Propriety as when it says that God is angry sorrowful repents or the like and that it is not true that any of these are the Causes of the Effects ascribed to them Here 1. Methinks he is wary in his Answer He might have granted that Famine is sent for the sins of Men and Rain and fruitful Seasons for a return to their Prayers and Repentance and yet have denied that either of these is wrought by Miracle For Nature is ordered and directed by the Wisdom and Providence of Almighty God as well as preserved and upheld by his Power and therefore his Wisdom may so direct it as often even by the Course of Nature to execute his divine purposes whether of Judgment or Mercy He sees our Actions and hears our Prayers from all eternity and therefore may as he has the whole Order of Nature before his eyes direct and determine the certain and necessary Events of it to their proper Seasons and make them Instrumental to the accomplishing of his purposes whether of shewing favour or executing wrath upon the Sons of Men. Thus therefore he need not be so strict as to deny any possibility of God's punishing us for our sins in the Order of Nature for fear lest it should betray him unawares to the concession of a Miracle Natural Causes indeed our Sins or P●ayers are not of these Effects nor yet Supernatural neither but moral only and meritorious as God upon view of either determines to punish or reward us But suppose it were not so 2. He gives but a very mean Solution of the difficulty that the Scripture speaks improperly here and in condescension to the Capacities and Opinions of the Vulgar as it does when it says that God is angry sorrowful or repents We grant the Scripture may be conceived to be obliged to speak in this manner concerning the incomprehensible Nature of God and such of his Perfections the modes whereof it is not necessary we should have explained to us how they are and act in him but yet it is not necessary that it should speak of every thing in the same manner or that every thing that it says should be shuffled off by this or the like suggestion Nothing is more natural and easie to be conceived than that God does punish or reward our good or bad Actions and that in this life and that his Justice and Wisdom will oblige him to do it as he takes upon him the Government of the World though it be very hard for the Vulgar to conceive how he does it without anger or displeasure and the contrary affections Therefore the Scripture may be conceived to speak of the one in condescention to our Capacities though yet no reason why it should be presumed to speak of the other in like manner I proceed to his fourth and last undertaking viz. To treat of the manner of interpreting the Scripture Miracles and what things are chiefly to be observed in the Relations about them Or as the Translator to shew that most Men have erred in their way of interpreting the Miracles recorded in the Holy Scripture To set us right he directs us in the reading of the Scripture-narrations about Miracles to enquire into two things 1. The particular Opinions and Prejudices of the Relator 2. The Idioms Phrases and Tropes of the Hebrew Tongue The first because generally all Historians relate the events they speak of suitable to their own Conjectures Opinions and Prejudices The other because otherwise we may from the Scripture-Style conceive some things to be related for Miracles which really are not For the first he instances in Joshua 10. v. 12 13. where the Account of the extraordinary length of that Day is given according to the common opinion of the Sun 's and not the Earth's motion For the Second in some allegorical places out of the Prophets Zachariah 14. v. 7. Isa 13. v. 10.48 v. ult By these two insinuations he would elude the force of all the clear and plain narrations about miracles in Scripture To the first and the instance he brings for it I answer the truth of the Miracle which Joshua relates is not at all prejudiced though it were true that the Earth moves and not the Sun for the course of Nature was stopped whether in the motion of the Sun or the Earth and therein consists the truth of the Miracle As to the relation of it it was not necessary either that Joshua should himself be so great a Philosopher or so far instructed by an extraordinary Revelation as to put up his request to God that the Earth should stand still and not the Sun or that the Account of it which he gives should be otherwise than according to the appearance of sense and the apprehensions of the Vulgar grounded thereupon To the second the truth of the Scripture-Miracles depends not upon any allegorical expressions in the Prophets but upon the naked Relations of matters of Fact in the Historical Writers so that though in the former we are to proceed with some Caution and not to take every thing for Miraculous which is spoken of in an high strain of expression yet in the latter we find no such danger of being imposed upon by the Tropes and Figures of the Hebrew Tongue all things being delivered in the Historical part of Scripture with the greatest plainness and simplicity I have run through the main of Spinoza's Chapter which consists in the proof of his four Propositions at first laid down What is behind is 1. An account of his different Method in this Chapter from that which he takes in his first and second Chapters about Prophecy and

rewards or punishes them here in this life Yet the demonstration of Gods Providence is not the proper and primary end of supernatural Effects but 4. A Miracle is properly intended to prove 1. Immediately the immediate power and presence of God Acting himself in an extraordinary manner in the working of it 2. By Vertue of this evident Demonstration of Gods immediate extraordinary presence the Divine Authority and Mission of that person whom God has been pleased to make his Instrument in the effecting of it at whose word or request the Order of Nature is suspended which we cannot suppose God would permit either for no end at all or for one so repugnant to his Sanctity and Goodness as to assist an Imposture Thus much therefore we may know by miracles not what God is in his Nature nor his Existence any better than we may know it by any Effect of Nature but his Providence his extraordinary presence and power and the Authority of that person whose Divine Mission it attests We are next to enquire whether his Arguments are more sufficient to disprove the authority of Miracles in this regard His arguments for the Truth of his second Proposition are from Reason and Scripture From Reason he attempts to prove it three wayes 1. Because the belief of the possibility of a Miracle does vertually introduce meer Scepticisme and consequently is so far from proving the Essence Existence or Providence of God that it takes away the certainty both of the existence of a Deity and every thing else 2. Because a Miracle is a work that transcends our Capacity to understand it and therefore what we understand not it self cannot lead us to the understanding of any thing else 3. Because a Miracle is a thing finite and therefore cannot be a fit Medium to prove the being of an Agent of infinite Power 1. The belief of the possibility of a Miracle virtually introduces meer Scepticisme and so takes away the certainty both of the being of God and every thing else This Argument strikes as much at the belief of Miracles themselves as of any thing else upon their Credit and Authority for there can be no Reason to believe any thing which to believe obliges me to doubt of every thing else as impossible to be certainly known The ground whereupon he asserts that the belief of Miracles leads us to Scepticisme is because it takes away the certain Truth of those Notions from whence we conclude the being of a God or any thing else that we know and that this it does in as much as it supposes a Power in God able to alter the Truth of these Notions for this too he must be able to do if able to change the course of Nature By these Notions may be understood two things 1. The Principles of Truth where upon we build all our knowledge 2. Our own Idea's and apprehensions of things The former are either the common Principles of Natural Light viz. Axioms evident upon the first apprehension of the Terms as That a thing cannot be and not be at the same time the whole is greater than any part c. Or 2. the definitions of things and propositions ascribing to them their Nature and Properties as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rationale Triangulum habet tres angulos aequales duobus rectis c. Or 3. Propositions containing the mutual respects of things as that Cruelty and Injustice are repugnant to the Nature of God Theft and Murder to the Nature of a sociable Creature c. Now these principles of Truth are all necessary and immutable and the Truth of them does not depend upon the being or order of Nature a possibility therefore of change in the order of Nature does not imply that by the same Power the truth of these Notions may be altered They are first necessary and immutable because it implies a contradiction for them to be false v. c. for the whole to be no greater than any part Man not to be a rational creature God to be cruel or unjust c. 2. They are true independently upon the being or order of Nature If God should destroy the whole frame of Nature yet it were true notwithstanding that the whole Body were bigger than any part If he should reduce Mankind into nothing it were still true notwithstanding That the nature of Man consists in the Vnion of a rational Soul and a Body endued with life and sense God may turn one thing into another and make the same Matter appear under a Form above or contrary to what it should have by the course of Nature but he cannot make it be and not be be of this Nature and of another at the same time He can suspend the Actions of his Creatures but yet cannot make them Act and not Act both together In short however God by his Power may alter or suspend the Order of Generations in Nature yet this Principle will hold true that in an order of successive generations of Men there must be some first Man and this first Man must have a Cause that is not Man and this Cause must either be it self or lead us at last to an infinite Supream Being So that the existence of a God may be deduced from certain and necessary Principles though the Order of Nature be capable of being changed by his Almighty Power The altering therefore of the course of Nature makes no alteration in the principles of Knowledg But does it not infer a Power in God to change our Notions and Apprehensions of them and of every thing else A Physical Power indeed it does as it proves him Omnipotent but this will not drive us to Scepticisme while we are certain that it is as much repugnant to his Veracity and Goodness as compatible to his Power barely considered For it is impossible that a Being infinitely Good and Holy should impose upon his Creatures and implant such Notions in their Minds as would necessarily induce them to believe a Lye or so alter their apprehensions of things as to make it impossible for them to make a true Judgment by the use of their own reason The belief of Miracles therefore does not lead us unto Scepticisme and so does not take away the certainty of the Being of a God but yet perhaps it may not be a fit Medium to prove either his Existence or his Proovidence or to declare bis Nature to us And this upon two Accounts 1. Because a Miracle is a Work that transcends our capacity to understand it and therefore what we understand not it self cannot lead us to the understanding of any thing else 2. Because a Miracle is a thing finite and therefore cannot be a fit Medium to prove the being of an Agent of infinite Power To the First a Miracle is a Work that transcends our capacity to understand it i. e. it is beyond the compass of our Knowledge to deduce it from natural Causes and good reason because