Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	church_n	just_a	separation_n	3,507	5	10.7526	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67683	A defence of the Discourse concerning the earth before the flood being a full reply to a late answer to exceptions made against The theory of the earth : wherein those exceptions are vindicated and reinforced, and objections against the new hypothesis of the deluge answered : exceptions also are made against the review of the theory / by Erasmus Warren ...	Warren, Erasmus.	1691 (1691)	Wing W963; ESTC R8172	161,741	237

expressly that the Waters covered the Tops of the highest Hills It does not say that they covered the tops of the highest Mountains And therefore for the Answerer to say it did affirm and say so expressly This I think is truly to force and falsify Scripture And thus his ill fortune haunts him still and where he thought to have catcht his adversary in a Net he only hampers and intangles himself For he relapses unhappily into his old infirmity and asserts what is not For where is it that Scripture says that the waters of the Flood did cover the tops of the highest Hills Yet he twice together asserts it did Two Untruths and so his recidivation is double and two untruths he tells at once 'T is confest Scripture says that the Mountains at the Flood were covered with waters But so it says also as we have observed that the Camp of Israel in the Wilderness was covered with Quails But as Quails two Cubits high upon the ground could not cover the Tops of the highest Tents so Waters fifteen Cubits high upon the Earth might not cover the Tops of the highest Hills For certain Scripture does not say it does not affirm expressly that they did Yet by this the Gentleman gives us to understand that what the Scripture says and expressly affirms is to be believed and ought to be received And then why is the being of a Sea before the Flood rejected and Adam's dominion over its fish denied I instance often in that Sea because I find it is of the Substance of the Theory and a piece of one of its Vital Assertions that the primitive Earth was without a Sea Ib. These Observations says the Answerer I know are of small use unless perhaps to the Excepter himself But without a perhaps the Replicant finds they are of no use at all unless to the Observator May he that made them make the best use of them Here he takes occasion to reflect upon the Literal Style of Scripture And the last Head he speaks to and the only head that concerns us is of such things as belong to the Natural World Ib. p. 84. And to this he says may be reduc'd innumerable Instances where we leave the literal sence if inconsistent with Science or Experience What meant he then to charge us with going contrary to the Letter of Scripture for supposing the fixedness of the Sun and the motion of the Earth by his own confession before that charge was incompetent and by his own Rule here it must be impertinent By and by he has this Fling but I know not at whom Some men out of love to their own ease 〈◊〉 and in defence of their ignorance are not only for a Scripture-Divinity but also for a Scripture-Philosophy For my own part as I hate too lazy a Philosophy so I despise too busy a one Sound Philosophy is a noble thing and let all advance in it as far as they can the more expert Philosophers they are the wiser and better they are like to be But still we must remember that true Philosophy being bounded by the Light of Nature must never interfere with Revelation As on the one side it should not be slothful so on the other side it must not be pragmatical Scripture is no enemy to Philosophy and Philosophy by no means must affront Scripture GOD allows men the freest use of their Reason but 't is unreasonable they should oppose it to Inspiration and by using it confront his authority who gave them it So concern'd was Plato to shun all such indecency that being in his Timaeus to debate concerning the Universe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it were made or not made he thought it necessary to invoke all the GODS and Goddesses that what should be said might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreeable to them and spoken consistently Change but the Object of the petition and the matter of it will be fit for any Philosophers Litany Direct the address to the One True GOD and there can be no fault in its application And let Notions be squar'd by the Rules that it contains and then Philosophy may take its liberty Scripture allows it sufficient latitude and the Christian Church will do no less So I am sure she did of old For then in her earlier and purer times she was so far from discouraging Philosophy that she took mens passing through its Schools to be a laudable preparative or qualification for their preferment Witness Origen cont Cel. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We will not turn away young men from those that teach Philosophy but where they have been exercis'd and have gone the round with them I will try to advance them higher c. But if any will abuse this noble liberty they must answer it to him who is philosophorum Deus as Tertullian told Marcion the GOD of Philosophers And if we would not aggravate our account here we must take heed of one thing Of entertaining Philosophy with trifling Notions For if once we suffer it to seed upon such trash we may expect it will soon get a surfeit and fall sick of Phantsy and that 's a Disease which commonly rises up into paroxysms of extravagance And then the vital heat of reason as I may call it turns into a violent and raging Fever And so the fire that should be kept orderly on the hearth furiously flies up to the house top And the flame which should burn only upon the Altar consumes the Temple Then he Observers Vpon the whole you see it is no fault to recede from the literal sence of Scripture but the fault is when we leave it without a just cause As it is no fault for a man to separate from a Church but to do it without a just cause is a real fault The beginning of this Observation does still farther justifie us against his late insufficient Charge And the rest of it gives us occasion to enquire what just cause he had to recede from the literal sence of Scripture as in too many instances he has done For if he left that sence without just cause he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemn'd by a sentence out of his own mouth The Letter of Scripture plainly says that GOD made two great Lights that He gave Adam Dominion over the Fish of the Sea that Tubal Cain was an Instructer of every Artificer in Brass and Iron That the Fountains of the Great Deep were broken up and the Windows of Heaven open'd the same day Now pray what good reason or what just cause is there for his departing from the Literal sence of Scripture in these things For to recede from it without Cause is as real a fault by his own confession as it is without cause to separate from a Church And therefore as causless separation from a Church is criminous Schism so causeless recession from that sence of Scripture must be culpable desertion And so if

hardly venture to defend them in Smithfield as glorious Witnesses have done the Articles of our Faith The pretended Inconsistency is hitherto invisible and concerning it we may return a non est inventa On he goes therefore as by a melius Inquirendo and makes farther search after it in the ensuing Paragraph The strength it has lies much in the close of it and expresses it self in this Argument Answ p. 69. The Church-way of explaining the Deluge is either rational or irrational If he say it is rational why does he desert it and invent a new one And if he say it is irrational then that dreadful thing which he cannot well endure to speak That the Church of GOD has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge falls flat upon himself The last vital Assertion of the Theory which the Excepter undertook in his Fifteenth Chapter is this That neither Noah 's Flood nor the present form of the Earth can be explained in any other method that is rational nor by any other causes that are intelligible besides those which the Theory assigns Whence follows what I cannot well endure to speak said the Excepter that the Church of GOD has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge Now says the Answerer this charge falls flat upon himself and he attempts to prove it by the Argument produced But we take it off with this direct and plain Reply First we say that the Church way of explaining the Deluge is very rational For it implies no more than GOD's creating Waters sufficient for it and his annihilating them again which is not in the least inconsistent with reason or repugnant to it Tho evident it is that his vital Assertion expressly condemns this way in which GOD's Church has ever gone as both irrational and unintelligible at once Methinks an excuse or defence of this should have been more seasonable than what we here meet with Unless he thinks that so black a blemish can be fastned on the wisest and noblest Society in the whole World without offence or means that the Readers Judgment for his unadvised rashness should pass upon him in course by nihil dicit Secondly we say that we do not desert or reject the Church-way of explaining the Deluge We allow indeed as he notes That it may be disgustful to the best and soundest Philosophic Judgments Disc p. 313. and the reasons are given why But then it is manifest that we shut out Philosophy from ruling in this Case as being in a good degree miraculous Ib. p. 355. The Flood was a Miracle in good measure Or had so much miracle running through it and interwoven with it that all passages in it are not to be accounted for by Reason and Philosophy And truly where Nature was over-rul'd by Providence it is but fit that Philosophy should give place to Omnipotence And whereas he observes that we say that by our Hypothesis Answ p. 68. we are excused from running to those Causes or Methods which seem unreasonable to some and unintelligible to others and unsatisfactory to most This is no proof that the Excepter deserts the Churches way of Explaining the Deluge For however some or others may think it unreasonable and unintelligible as the Theorist makes it and how unsatisfactory soever some of the causes or methods alledg'd by the Excepter may be to most yet the Excepter is of the mind that the Churches method is very rational and easy to be understood And tho he farther remarks that the Excepter says that the ordinary Supposition that the Mountains were covered with water in the Deluge Ib. brings on a necessity of setting up a new Hypothesis for explaining the Flood yet that necessary new Hypothesis which the Excepter means will plainly show that he justifies and defends the Church-Hypothesis instead of deserting it For it is only this We must suppose that the Mountains of Ararat whereon the Ark rested in the height of the Deluge were then the highest Mountains in the World but since that time they are either worn down or sunk and settled lower than some others Admit but this and then Scripture Geography and the Churches method of explaining the Flood will all be reconcil'd and the usual Hypothesis will stand clear of material Difficulties and Objections Thirdly we say that tho we invented a new Hypothesis it was not set up in competition with this of the Church but in comparison with that of the Theory and in Confutation of its last vital Assertion For it makes it evident that there is another way of explaining Noah's Flood both rational in its method and intelligible in its causes Disc p. 300. l. 18. at least as rational and intelligible as his And as such a Comparative Hypothesis as we have made it it may possibly stand almost as long as the Theorist's which draws more and greater Absurdities after it Especially if it should have but a Second Edition to support it on the one side and a Review to prop it up on the other and have many things left out of it and have one word in it explain'd by another and have here and there a Contradiction allow'd it c. And thus the Excepter is freed from the objected inconsistency with himself and good sense This same Reply will take off those Objections also which are brought on by the Answerer at the bottom of his seventieth Page as being of near affinity with what he last alledged Having thus made his general Observations he comes now to Particulars The first he pitches upon is the Height of the Deluge-waters which we set at fifteen Cubits above the highest parts of the common Surface of the Earth making it the Foundation of our Hypothesis and supposing it to rest upon Scripture and to be supported by that This therefore he says Answ p. 69. must needs raise our Curiosity to see that place of Scripture which has been overlookt by all the Learned hitherto But if learned mens overlooking this Text as to the sense that we apply it to be a just Objection against our alledging it how much more strongly must the same Objection come against the Theorist for alledging so many Texts as he does in confirmation of such new and strange notions as none of the learned could ever see contained in them or confirmed by them but always overlookt them as to such meanings Answ p. 67. Then he urges Scripture says plainly that the Mountains were covered with waters Ib. p. 69. and how could fifteen Cubits reach to the tops of the Mountains This Objection is fully answered in our Discourse only thus much may be here put in Chap. 16. Pagr 3. Gen. 7.20 As the high Mountains were covered with Waters so the Camp of Israel was covered with Quails Yet those Quails which covered the Camp Exod. 16.13 were but two Cubits high upon the face of the Earth Numb 11.31 Now if