Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	effect_n	reason_n	see_v	2,645	5	3.6710	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A32889	The Christian belief wherein is asserted and proved, that as there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason, yet there are some doctrines in it above reason, and these being necessarily enjoyn'd us to believe, are properly call'd mysteries : in answer to a book intituled, Christianity not mysterious.	Cheynell, Francis, 1608-1665.	1696 (1696)	Wing C3941; ESTC R212988	55,473	162

Reveal'd Disquisitions GOD has discover'd or enabl'd us to comprehend as much as is useful or necessary in both these Cases but after all we can pretend no further than some principal Properties And since Reason tells us there 's a great deal undiscover'd and incomprehensible we may justly affirm That there are Mysteries in Nature as well as Revelation so that we are beholden to him for his Argument tho' he had no Friendly Design in it Indeed if he would be content to carry us no further than the force of his Argument naturally tends we should presently joyn in an amicable Accommodation which is in other terms no more than this There can be no Mystery in Revelation he might have added nor in rerum natura I mean in this Notion of it because we know as much as our Finite Understandings are capable of or as much as is necessary or useful If this may be admitted it 's a substantial Reason to conclude against the Possibility of a Mystery But we may say there are Mysteries not because we know not as much as is necessary and useful but because after we know the principal Properties of Things or as much as is necessary or useful we can discern a great deal which we cannot comprehend And this holds good not only in Matters of Revelation but Nature too Our Adversary confesses as much for tho' we have a competent Idea of the Properties of Bodies that is as far as they are useful to us yet we are not able to comprehend the Modus of their Operations nor indeed the true Causes of a great many obvious Effects Again In reveal'd Truths we can form at least an imperfect Idea of what GOD proposes to our belief Thus we form an Idea of our Saviour's Divinity from those Characters which Revelation and Natural Reason gives us of the Godhead We believe him to be possess'd with the fulness of the Godhead because the same Characters are ascrib'd to him that are ascrib'd to the Father in respect of the Godhead but we cannot form an Idea of the Manner of the Union of this Divinity with Humane Nature nor its Consistence with the Vnity of the Godhead at least so as to make it comport with common Notions So that in respect of the Modus of things whether as to their Existence or Operations even in those of Natural Bodies as well as Matters of Revelation there are Mysteries in Nature and that properly as well as in Revelation Our Adversary indeed would call this an Inadequate Knowledge but nothing Mysterious or above Reason but I hope to prove it a Mystery even in the received sence of the Word as well as the reason of the Thing and that too on his own Concessions and Principles And 1st It 's certain his Evasions concerning Inadequate Ideas will do him no service to take off the Denominations of Mystery or above Reason for we affirm That Things are Mysterious and above Reason because we can form but very imperfect and inadequate Ideas of ' em It 's certainly absurd to imagine that any thing can be mysterious or above Reason which we are able fully to comprehend and it 's equally absurd to say that things are mysterious when we can form no Idea at all since we can pronounce nothing when we know nothing But to confess that of most things we can form but imperfect and inadequate Ideas is to prove a thing to be mysterious for if we know and acknowledge that our most improv'd Ideas are inadequate we must conclude there 's something behind either as to the Modus or Rationale of Things which Reason cannot comprehend And I know no better denomination than to say That Things are in this respect mysterious or above Reason To make up the strict Notion of Mystery we are not to consider the Necessity or Usefulness of what we cannot comprehend but the grand Question is Whether there are not Modes and Properties of Things that by reason of the Imperfection of Human Vnderstanding or the Immensity or Intricacy of the Things ' emselves cannot be comprehended by us For it is the Abstruseness or Inaccessibility of Things that make the Mysteries not the Necessity or Usefulness of what is incomprehensible And therefore if there be Things in this material World which we cannot comprehend we may truly affirm That there 's a Mystery in Nature or that Natural Causes or Effects are thus far above Reason or mysterious much more may we affirm it of Matters of Revelation And therefore to use the Instance of a vain insulting Adversary Tho' we live upon Water and see and handle it daily there may and is something in it mysterious and above Reason inasmuch as we cannot form an Idea of every thing that truly belongs to it And yet no wise Man will be tempted to make such a practical Inference as this Reasoner hath suggested that is resolve never to enquire into its Nature nor imploy it in his House or Grounds But in Matters of Revelation we know how inadequate our Ideas are as much as Finite differs from Infinite Negative from Positive and Sence from Spirit Must they not then contain things above Reason because they are only thus inadequate But further As for the original Import of the word MYSTERY I am not concern'd to trace it in the primitive Uses of it it 's sufficient if by Custom it hath obtain'd another Import it may be every jot as proper as the former Our Author owns that in approved Classicks it 's commonly taken for obscure and intricate Matters such as cannot well be comprehended or seen into And this I think is equally proper with that other describ'd by him which implies something beyond a Veil not discernable till that is remov'd And in this sence the Types under the Mosaick Law he accounts Mysteries for those which thro' the Imperfections or Weakness of Reason or the Immensity Distance or Intricacy of the Object may be as little discern'd as those that have a Veil over 'em and then they seem to be equally mysterious and above Reason In a word Mystery is something shut up from our View or Cognizance and it is not material whether this be done by a Veil or other Impediments or Obstructions and consequently Mystery and an Inadequate Idea may be very consistent I do not mean that which arises from affected Ignorance but the Intricacy of the Object and the Weakness of Humane Reason under its highest Improvements But to clear up his Understanding in this matter by a few Arguments drawn from his own Positions the Riches of his own inexhausted Brain he tells us Cap. 3. N. 27. That certain Gospel-Doctrines are call'd Mysteries with respect to the Jews not that they knew nothing of 'em but they were not clearly and fully reveal'd till the New Testament-times being veil'd before by various Typical Representations c. Well you see he allows Mosaick Types to be Mysteries and gives the reason Because

not only the Sence of the Word but the Things we contend for are recorded in Scripture as any he has produc'd to the contrary So that in truth we are ready to render up ourselves to the Voice of Scripture as well as submit the Merits of the Cause to it without being influenc'd and carried away by such weak Practisings as he has set forth in a Dialogue that would merit some Stripes if perform'd by a School-boy rather than Applause as 't is the Product of a pretending Master of Reason See Sect. 36. And now I have done with his Scripture-authorities but cannot pass by one Remark of his which I find to be the chief Improvement that graces his Second Edition Nor is it undeserving our particular Notice that Mystery is here made the distinguishing Mark of the False and Antichristian Church See Rev. xvii 5. And no doubt but as far as any Church allows of Mysteries so far it is Antichristian and may with a great deal of Iustice tho' little Honour claim Kindred with the Scarlet Whore Here is a very bold Stricture and yet a Man with half an Eye may discern that his Observation is as irrational and ridiculous as his Inference for Mystery in this place I suppose would not have pass'd for a distinguishing Mark had not her Doctrines and Practices merited the other part of the Title viz. The Mother of Harlots and Abomination of the Earth had she not held a golden Cup in her Hand full of Abominations and Filthiness of her Fornication Ver. 4. and been drunken with the Blood of the Saints and with the Blood of the Martyrs of Iesus But as for his Inference had he consulted St. Paul's Second Epistle to the Thessalonians a little better he might have learn'd that there 's a Mystery of Iniquity as well as Godliness but perhaps he was unwilling to be disappointed of a malicious tho' illogical Suggestion he might there have inform'd himself That it was always the Devil's Business to imitate the True Religion by mighty Signs and lying Wonders if it were possible to deceive the very Elect nay that Antichrist sitteth in the Temple of GOD shewing himself that he is GOD and consequently he must pretend to Mystery with a witness So that upon the whole this Gentleman may as well assign the Devil's Miracles for a distinguishing Mark of Antichrist and prove the true Religion to be nearly related to Antichrist the Scarlet Whore and the Devil because she proceeds upon the Authority of Miracles Nay rather we may upon his Argument affirm That Miracles are a distinguishing Mark of the true Religion And since Antichrist and the Devil pretend to Miracles the Religion they pretend to must be true too Whereas we know these to be Divine and Authoritative those Diabolical and Usurped so we pronounce this the Mystery of Iniquity that the Mystery of Godliness The next thing that offers itself is the Suffrage of the Primitive Church It 's true there are a great many things intervene wherein he labours more to give us a Specimen of his Wit that Reason But truly I think they are both of a piece for I can discover nothing that deserves a single Reflection much less a formal Reply I proceed therefore to the Suffrage of the Fathers to whom he makes an Appeal He tells us indeed It is not out of any deference to their Iudgments N. 40. and therefore we must conclude he submits to it because he 's perswaded they peremptorily declare for his Opinion but I hope to prove the contrary For tho' he confesses he has bestow'd a great deal of Pains upon 'em yet this is so far from discouraging us from entering the List that I hope to make it appear that his Pains are either an Effect of his Ignorance in these Authors or of his Dishonesty in suppressing their Opinions And first all that he proves out of the Fathers is That they have asserted other Notions of Mystery than what we contend for whereas he himself assigns four or five different Notions and if Classick Authors were consulted we could produce some more and therefore he might as well reject one of his own Notions because the Fathers have not mention'd it But I find this Author upon every turn shamefully betrays his Reason for he knows not what is incumbent upon him to prove and therefore we need not wonder if he proves not his main Design I 'm sure he 's now to prove a Negative or that which amounts to it if he proves any thing viz. That the Fathers he cites no where apply the word MYSTERY to things beyond Humane Comprehension or that those Notions of the word Mystery which he finds recorded are deliver'd exclusively of all others for if he has neither cited all their Notions or Acceptations of the word nor prov'd that they are exclusive of all others he proves nothing against the acceptation of the word we now contend for and if so the most cursory Reader will presently pronounce That he must give up the Cause in case he fixes it on this Issue I mean the Authority of Fathers But because I will take no advantage of his weakness I will go along with him in his own Instances And 1st What he cites from Clemens Alexand. concludes nothing for I know no Christian that denys the Christian Religion to be an Illumination because it brought hidden things to light and that with respect to the Mosaick Veil But this only proves one of his own Notions that is indeed allow'd by us But to be short with him Whereas he has the Face to tell us That several of those Texts of Scripture alledg'd by him are by this Father expounded on his side and consequently against our Notion I shall appeal to what has been already cited from him to prove the quite contrary Indeed I could add a great deal more to discover his Judgment of the Inconceivableness of certain Objects of Faith or Matters of Revelation and because I 'm engag'd I shall produce a few Instances And first where he stiles Christianity an Illumination he speaks of the Fulness of Christ as a Mystery reveal'd indeed but the Nature of it known to a very few and he proves it from the Incomprehensible Nature of GOD Strom. lib. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet more fully on Moses's words Exod. 33. ver 18. Shew me thy Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. p. 365. Strom. lib. That is by the Effects of his Power Again on St. Paul's words 1 Cor. 5. Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us Strom. lib. 5. he observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here it 's evident he argues from the Incomprehensibleness of the Divine Nature and consequently must fix the Mystery on this Bottom as well as the want of Revelation Indeed we may justly argue à majori from the Sence of this Father if the Nature of the Godhead be in the Opinion of this great Man so highly incomprehensible how much more