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 separate_v separation_n 2,045 5 10.3917 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A30481 An answer to the late exceptions made by Mr. Erasmus Warren against The theory of the earth Burnet, Thomas, 1635?-1715. 1690 (1690) Wing B5942; ESTC R31281 68,479 88

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Resurrection-Body consists of the same individual parcels and particles whereof the mortal Body consisted before it was putrified or dispers'd And whether the Book of Life are to be understood in a literal sence The last Head is of such things as belong to the Natural World And to this may be reduc'd innumerable Instances where we leave the literal sence if inconsistent with Science or experience And the truth is if we should follow the Vulgar Style and literal sence of Scripture we should all be Anthropomorphites as to the Nature of God And as to the Nature of his works in the external Creation we must renounce Philosophy and Natural Experience if the descriptions and accounts given in Scripture concerning the Heavens the Earth the Sea and other parts of the World be received as accurate and just representations of the state and properties of those Bodies Neither is there any danger lest this should affect or impeach the Divine Veracity for Scripture never undertook nor was ever designed to teach us Philosophy or the Arts and Sciences And whatsoever the Light of Nature can reach and comprehend is improperly the Subject of Revelation But 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 'T is a cheap and compendious way and saves them the trouble of farther study or examination Upon 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 or for a Prince to make war against his Neighbour but to do the one or the other without a just cause is a real fault We all leave the literal sence in certain cases and therefore that alone is no sufficient charge against any man But he that makes a separation if I may so call it without good reasons he is truly obnoxious to censure The great result of all therefore is this to have some common Rule to direct us when every one ought to follow and when to leave the Literal Sence And that Rule which is generally agreed upon by good Interpreters is this Not to leave the literal Sence when the subject matter will bear it without absurdity or incongruity This Rule I have always proposed to my self and always endeavoured to keep close to it But some inconsiderate minds make every departure from the Letter let the Matter or Cause be what it will to be an affront to Scripture And there where we have the greatest liberty I mean in things that relate to the Natural world They have no more indulgence or moderation than if it was an intrenchment upon the Articles of Faith In this particular I cannot excuse the present Animadverter yet I must needs say he is a very Saint in comparison of another Animadverter who hath writ upon the same subiect but neither like a Gentleman nor like a Christian nor like a Scholar And such Writings answer themselves FINIS Pag. 44. Pag. 45. Eng. Theor. p. 65. Eng. Theor. ● 106. 107. ● 74. lin 18 19. p. 77 78. 79. p. 79. p. 80 81 p. 83. Prin. ph l. 4. §. 84. Meteor c. 1. §. 8. Prin. phil l. 4. §. 76. Eng. Theor. p. 58 59. p. 80 81. p. 81. * Ego quidem in eâ sum sententiâ si in harum rerum de quibus agitur cognitionem aut aliarum quarumcunque quae momenti sunt visum fuerit Deo aut Naturae ut pateret hominibus ratio perveniendi ratio illa certa est in aliquâ clarâ invictâ evidentiâ fundata non conjecturalis vaga dubia Qualem nempe ii qui optimè utuntur libertate suâ qui maximè sibi cavent ab erroribus nunquam amplecterentur Pag. 52. lin 17. lin 27. p. 78. p. 299. pen. p. 86. * Si admittamus insuper Ignem Centralem sive Massam ignis in centro Terrae quod quidem non est hujus argumenti Neque partem intimam Chaos nisi obiter pro formâ consideravi cum ad rem nostram non spectet Vid. etiam p. 186. edit 2. Eng. Theor. p. 324. p 88. p. 106. p. 114. p. 118. Gen. 1. 22. 22. ch 13. p. 121. Eph. 1. 4. 1 Pet. 1. 20. Apoc. 13. 8. p. 122. p. 121. * Notandum verò quamvis mundi veteris dissolutionem rationes Diluvii secundum ordinem causarum naturalium explicemius quòd eo modo magis clare distincte intelligantur non ideo in poenam humani generis ordinatum fuisse diluvium singulisque ipsius motibus praefuisse providentiam inficiamur imo in eo elucet maximè Sapientia divina quod mundum naturalem morali ita coaptet attemperet ut hujus ingenio illius ordo dispositio semper respondeat amborum libratis momentis simul concurrant unà compleantur utriusque tempora vicissitudines ipse etiam Apostolus Petrus diluvii excidii mundani causas naturales assignat cùm ait 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theor. p. 106 107 108. Ver. 5 p. 137. Theor. c. 1. Review p. 29 c. * Eng. Theor p. 86. p. 86. Excep p. 140. p. 141. p. 146. p. 148. p. 149. Gen. 1. 2. p. 150. p. 143. p. 81. p. 100. last part p. 154. p. 227 228. p. 244. p. 279 280. p. 288. p. 158. Lat. Theor. li. 2. c. 4. p. 159. p. 263 264 265. Eng. Theor. p. 286 287. p. 166. p. 168. p. 169. p. 170. p. 1●1 Eng. Theor. p. 99. p. 176. p. 177. p. 178. p. 179. p. 180. p. 181. p. 182. p. 184. Praep. Evan. l. 10. c. ult p. 504. Col. ch 14. p. 750. Strom. 2. p. 364. Phaed. p. 99. Serem 2. p. 416. Li. 2. c. 10. p. 274. Vid. Theor. Lat. li. 2. c. 10. in fine * De Grat. Prim. hom c. 12. Accedit ad haec quod Paradisus it a describitur à Sancto Basilio in Libro de Paradiso à Joan. Damasceno Libro secundo de fide capite undecimo à Sancto Augustino libro decimo quarto de civitate Dei capit 10. Ab Alchimo Avito Claud. Mario victore aliis suprà citatis Isidoro libro decimo quarto Etymolog capite tertio aliis communiter ut fuerit in eo ver perpetuum nulla figora nulli aestus nullae pluviae nives grandines nullae etiam nubes quod ipsum significat scriptura cum dicit primos homines in Paradiso fuisse nudos See Eng. Theor. p. 253. p. 185. p. 180. p. 187. p. 188. p. 189. p. 190. p. 186. p. 195. Plat. in Phaed. Lat. Theor li. 2. c. 10. p. 197. p. 186. Theor. Lat. li. 2. c. 5. p. 198. p. 201. Isa. 9. 6 7. Isa. 9. 1 c. Luk. 1. 31 32 33. p. 202. p. 205. p. 206. p. 207. ibid. p. 208. p. 208 209 c. p. 209. p. 51. the 4th day was the first day of the Sun's existence p. 209. p. 215. p. 216. p. 215. li. 24. Gen. 6. 1● * Per ludibrium rogant nasuti homines unde Architectos Opifices conduxerit Cain ad urbem extruendam Nos vicissim ab illis quaerimus quo authore credant Vrbem ex quadratis lapidibus fuisse extructam magno artificio multisque sumptibus longi temporis operâ aedificium hoc constitisse Nihil enim aliud colligere licet exverbis Mosis quàm muros ex rudi materiâ Cain sibi posteris circumdedisse Cal. in loc p. 250. p. 224. Iob 38. 8. p. 219 220. p. 225 226. Gen. 1. 17. p. 234. p. 246. p. 257. 2 Kings 13. 17. Eng. Theor. book 2. ch 5. Eng. Theor. book 2. ch 7. p. 265. p. 273. See the Table of both Eng. Theor. p. 220. Gen. 47. 9. Theor. bo 2. ch 3. 4th p. 2●7 p. 276 277. p. 278. 79 280. ibid. Eng. Theor. p. 23. ibid. p. 280. p. 281. p. 285. p. 286. ibid. See Review p. 35 c. p. 288. Eng. Theor. p. 108. p. 98. p. 289 ibid. See p. 27. before p. 290. p. 292. p. 296. Eng. Theor. book 2. ch 9. at the end p. 299. p. 297 300. p. 300. p. 329. lin 19. c. 31. p. 339. lin 18. p. 312. ult Eng. Theor. ch 2. 3. * The Excepter rejects first the Waters of the Sea Then the Waters in the bowels of the Earth Then the Supercelestial Waters Then a New Creation of Waters Then the mass of Air chang'd into water And lastly a partial Deluge And therefore he puts men fatally either upon the Theory or upon his new Hypothesis p. 301. p. 302. lin 21. 1 Sam. 17. 4. Gen. 7. 19. * This he acknowledges p. 325. We expound a Text or two of Scripture so as none ever did and deserting the common receiv'd sence put an unusual Gloss upon them not to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a private interpretation and p. 359. p. 215 216 292 c. p. 330. p. 332 333. p. 337. p. 339. p. 341. See ch 10. Gen. 8. 5. p. 341. p. 343. p. 303. * p. 303. But though these Caverns be called Deeps we must not take them for profound places that went down into the Earth below the common Surface of it on the contrary they were situate above it * Psal. 114. 7 8. Tremble thou Earth at the presence of the Lord at the presence of the God of Jacob Which turned the Rock into a standing water the flint into a fountain of Waters Num. 20. 10 11. And Moses and Aaron gathered the Congregation together before the Rock and he said unto them Hear now you rebels must we fetch you water out of this Rock And Moses lift up his hand and with his rod he smote the Rock twice and the Water came out abundantly p. 303 305. * ch 3. p. 343. Eng. Theor. p. 150. Eng. Theor. p. 96. Eng. Theor p. 288. p. 43. p. 78. p. 286. Ps. 19. 5 6. Ios. 10. 12 13. 2 Kin. 20. 10 11. Isa. 38. 8. p. 157. p. 74. Gen. 7. 19 20. Gen. 8. 5. p. 216. Mat. 5. 29 30. Phil. 4. 3. Apoc. 3. 5. 20. 12.
very vain and trifling thing So much is true That the Deluge in the course of Nature will not return again in the same way But unless God prevent it it both may and will return in another way That is if the World continue long enough the Mountains will wear and sink and the Waters in proportion rise and overflow the whole Earth As is plainly shewn by a parallel case in the first Book of the Theory ch 4. Besides God might when he pleas'd by an extraordinary power and for the sins of Men bring another Deluge upon the World And that is the thing which Noah seems to have fear'd and which God by his Covenant secur'd him against For as the Excepter hath said himself in answering an harder objection p. 152. When God assigned to the Waters the place of their abode he did not intend to fortifie them in it against his own omnipotence or to devest himself of his Sovereign Prerogative of calling them forth when he pleased This being allow'd with what we said before that Covenant was not vain or trifling either in respect of an ordinary or extraordinary Providence Thus we have done with all the Exceptions against the Theory For the two next Chapters are concerning a new Hypothesis of his own And the last of all excepts not against the truth of the Theory but the certainty of it In reflection upon this whole matter give me leave to declare Two things First That I have not knowingly omitted any one Objection that I thought of moment Secondly That I have not from these Exceptions found reason to change any part of the Theory nor to alter my opinion as to any particular in it No doubt there are several Texts of Scripture which understood according to the Letter in a Vulgar way stand cross both to this and other natural Theories And a Child that had read the first Chapters of Genesis might have observ'd this as well as the Excepter but could not have loaded his charge with so much bitterness Some Men they say though of no great Valour yet will fight excellently well behind a Wall The Excepter behind a Text of Scripture is very fierce and rugged But in the open Field of Reason and Philosophy he 's gentle and tractable The Theorist had declar'd his intentions and oblig'd himself to give a full account of Moses his Cosmopoeia or six-days Creation but did not think it proper to be done in the Vulgar Language nor before the whole Theory was compleated This might have spar'd much of the Excepter's pains But till that account be given if the Excepter thinks fit to continue his Animadversions and go thorough the Two last Books as he hath done the two first it will not be unacceptable to the Theorist Provided it be done with sincerity in reciting the words and representing the sence of the Author CHAP. XV. IN This Chapter the Anti-theorist lays down a new Hypothesis for the Explication of the Deluge And the War is chang'd on his side from Offensive to Defensive 'T is but fair that he should lie down in his turn and if some blows smart a little he must not complain because he begun the Sport But let 's try his Hypothesis without any further ceremony The first Proposition laid down for the establishing of it is this That the Flood was but fifteen Cubits high above the ordinary level of the Earth This is an unmerciful Paradox and a very unlucky beginning For under what notion must this Proposition be receiv'd As a Postulatum or as a Conclusion If it be a Postulatum it must be clear from its own light or acknowledg'd by general consent It cannot pretend to be clear from its own light because it is matter of Fact which is not known but by Testimony Neither is it generally acknowledg'd For the general opinion is that the Waters cover'd the tops of the Mountains Nay that they were fifteen Cubits higher than the tops of the Mountains And this he confesses himself in these words We shall find there is a great mistake in the common Hypothesis touching their depth namely of the Waters For Whereas they have been supposed to be fifteen Cubits higher than the highest Mountains They were indeed but fifteen Cubits high in all above the Surface of the Earth And this Opinion or Doctrine he calls The general standing Hypothesis The usual Hypothesis The usual sence they have put upon the Sacred Story It must not therefore be made a Postulatum that such an Hypothesis is false but the falsity of it must be demonstrated by good Proofs Now I do not find that this new Hypothesis of a fifteen-cubit-Deluge offers at any more than one single proof namely from Gen. 7. 20. But before we proceed to the examination of that give me leave to note one or two things wherein the new-Theorist seems to be inconsistent with himself or with good sence At his entrance upon this new Hypothesis he hath these words P. 300. Not that I will be bound to defend what I say as true and real c. But why then does he trouble himself or the World with an Hypothesis which he does not believe to be true and real or if he does believe it to be so Why will he not defend it for we ought to defend truth But he says moreover p. 302. lin 19. Our supposition stands supported by Divine authority as being founded upon Scripture Which tells us as plainly as it can speak that the Waters prevailed but fifteen Cubits upon the Earth If his Hypothesis be founded upon Scripture and upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak Why will not he defend it as true and real For to be supported by Scripture and by plain Scripture is as much as we can alledge for the Articles of our Faith which every one surely is bound to defend But this is not all the difficulty we meet with The whole period which we quoted runs thus Not that I will be bound to defend what I say as true or real any more than to believe what I cannot well endure to speak that the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge Which yet she must needs have done if there be no other rational method of explaining it and no other intelligible Causes of it than what the Theory has propos'd Now for the word Theory put the word Excepter or Excepter's Hypothesis and see if this charge That the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge does not fall as much upon the Excepter's new Hypothesis as upon the Theory If the Church-Hypothesis was rational what need he have invented a new one why does he not propose that Hypothesis and defend it I 'me afraid it will be found that he does not only contradict the Church-Hypothesis but reject it as mistaken and irrational For what is the Church-Hypothesis but the Common Hypothesis p.