Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	efficient_a	instrumental_a	principal_a	2,553	5	8.0021	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13022	A learned treatise in three parts, 1 The definition 2 The distribution of Divinity. 3 The happinesse of man; as it was scholastically handled by John Stoughton D.D. in Immanuell Colledge Chappell in Cambridge, while he was fellow there: and now published according to the copy left under his own hand.	Stoughton, John, d. 1639.; Burgess, Anthony, d. 1664.	1640 (1640)	STC 23309; ESTC S121757	47,895	106

Metaphysicks to one man they would be but one Science because there would be the same ratio formalis sub qua viz. divine Revelation he thinks it no absurdity to grant so much But I take it this cannot be for if Revelation were the formalis by which any thing were brought into the compasse of Divinity then First nothing should be handled there but quatenus Revelatum and so Divinity should have no proper subject of it own And second every thing quatenus Revelatum should be handled there upon which must needs follow this inconvenience that the truths of all Arts should belong to Divinity because many of them are revealed in the Scripture as for example naturall morall Politicall Historicall Architectonicall Mathematicall and almost of all kinds at least all of them may be revealed if God pleased as well as Theologicall are And second it would follow that Theology should not be distinguished from other Arts by any essentiall difference but only by this extrinsecall respect of being revealed which may as I said be a common affection of all truths 't is true indeed that de facto all truths necessary to Salvation are Revealed and de jure they had need to be revealed and if that opinion aimed at no more I think it should offend not against the verity of the thing so much as the propriety of the language but they seeme to say more and in that sense I reject it For the second that mention of the Scripture is not to be made in the definition of Divinity when we go about to lay down the nature of it accurately I shew it thus First because it is but an extrinsecall relation as hath been said and therefore as it were absurd to say of Logick that it is an Art of Reason delivered in Aristotles Organon or in Ramus and it were inconvenient to define any Art that it was such an one attained to by naturall reason and humane industry which have the same habitude to the Sciences of humanity that Revelation hath to the Doctrine of Divinty so in a like I say not an equall proportion it would be at least unnecessary to interpose this in the definition of Theology that it is revealed by God in his word Second because it is not of so generall consideration as to be placed in the title and frontispiece of the Art as may if you do but remember First the finis cui or the object of the Scripture which is either onely or especially man faln in which estate it is absolutely necessary that he should have the word of God to bee his guide toward his true happines And second if you remember the efficient cause of the Scripture which beside the principall the holy Spirit is instrumentall holy men inspired by God the pen-men of the holy Ghost which were alway extraordinary ministers of the Church having such immediate assistance of the Spirit now both these the fall of man and extraordinary officers of the Church without which the nature and use of the Scriptures cannot well be unfolded are of later consideration and follow afterward in the body of this Art and therefore the treating of the Scripture cannot be exalted so high as the definition without an obscure anticipation of exact order For the third that this notwithstanding it may be convenient to define it so for some circumstances of prudence it will be no hard matter to demonstrate First because it conteines all thing necessary to Salvation and therefore is coextended with the object of Divinity and in this sense also the Scripture may be called a Rule or Canon because though it be not every way adaequate as that uses to be conteining many things in it which are not properly Theologicall as I noted before yet it hath all those things in it but it is more aptly resembled to a Rule or Canon as it respects faith and things to be beleeved with which it is every way reciprocated for every thing revealed in the Scripture is to be beleeved and every truth to be beleeved is revealed in Scripture Second because all men now are in the state of corruption of the fall so that it is absolutely necessary as the case stands for all men and so it is well commended to all in in the very entrance as a principle and ground of all that followes and is placed at the top as a candle upon a candlesticke to give light better to all the roome And thus much of the first addition in this latter definition that Divinity is a Doctrine revealed by God in his Word The second follows which is that this Doctrine teaches man to know God concerning which I shall deliver my minde what I think in so many propositions likewise First that God is not the subject of divinity Second that he is not according to his nature at all to be handled in divinity Third that there is just reason why he may and should according to the method of prudence The first may appeare by the same argument negatively concluded by which I proved that man as he is to be guided to his end or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in a reasonable nature is called happines is the true subject about which all the precepts in this Art are conversant but I passe over that Second it may appeare by this reason because divinity as hath been proved is a practicall Art not a Speculative now a Practical Art is that whose end is operation and that immediate not mediatè as Valentia well observes for the remote and mediate end of any contemplative Science may be operation and a Practicall Art hath alway such an object as is res operabilis à nobis but if God be the subject neither of these can agree to it as it is more then manifest therefore God is not the Subject The second that God is not at all to be handle in Divinity though perhaps it be included in the former and might be proved by the same reasons if he be neither the subject nor part of the subject yet because it will seem more strange to some I will rather prove it distinctly and severally First because Divinity as we for the most part generally conceive of it is a particular Art one of the lowest and last but God must be needs handled in the first or very neer the first for if ars be ranked according to ens God who is the first being may justly challenge the first Art at least next to that of Art in generall if there be any such in the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Second because if there were any reason why God should be handled in this Art it would be this because he is the object of the operations of man which are here regulated namely in which regard I deny not but he may be called a remote object of it but this is not sufficient because by the same reason the nature of man should be handled here also he being the