Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	evil_a	good_a	know_v	2,974	5	4.2147	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47422	Mr. Blount's oracles of reason examined and answered in nine sections in which his many heterodox opinions are refuted, the Holy Scriptures and revealed religion are asserted against deism & atheism / by Josiah King ...	King, Josiah.	1698 (1698)	Wing K512A; ESTC R32870	107,981	256

Principle which is good as Infinity of Being and Necessity of Existence it unvoidably follows That the Principle of Evil the other Anti-god which is in all things contrary to the former must be an Infinite Non entity which yet exists And if this be not the height of Non-sense nothing can be so Besides this Principle overthrows all Religion as well Natural as Revealed it destroys all Vertue and Goodness For if this contrary Principle be the Cause of all Evil then Evil necessarily falls out all Freedom of Will is destroy'd all difference of Good and Evil is taken away For if Evil becomes once necessary it loseth its Nature there can be th●n no Government of the World by Laws no Rewards no Punishments for they all suppose Liberty of Action All these must be banished out of the World if this Persian Opinion be true Which according to Mr. Blount may be true if Genesis be a Parable and in his Opinion it is so To such Contradictions Men expose themselves when they take on them the Patronage of such gross Lyes and Falsehoods How important this Question is and of how great Concernment it is to us to fix it on sure grounds no body can be ignorant To which purpose that of Simplicius is remarkable in his Commentary on Epictetus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Controversy about the Nature of Good and Evil not being well stated is the cause of great Impiety towards God and perverts the Principle of good Life and casts those Persons into innumerable perplexities who are not able to give a rational account thereof If we consult Origen and Celsus we may soon perceive that the Origin of Evil cannot be discovered by Natural Religion for both own the discovery thereof to be of great difficulty Celsus says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is a difficult thing to know the Nature of Evil unless a Man philosophises the Vulgar are not capable of it And altho' Origen differs from Celsus lib. 4. and says That Celsus is in an Errour in imputing this to Matter yet in this accords with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any thing in the World be of difficult discovery that which relates to the Origin of Evil is of the number of those things This is affirm'd by Origen with respect to Natural Religion in which all things are of very easy investigation and as Mr. Blount says of the Innate Idea of a Deity p. 178. are soon imprinted on the Minds of Men. Plutarch in his Book de Iside Osiride p. 369 370 and 371. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This Opinion pleaseth many and wise Men some think there are two Gods of contrary Natures one is the Author of all Good the other of Evil. And Diogenes Laertius tells us that this was the Opinion of the Persian Magi who were of greater Antiquity than the Egyptians according to Aristotle in his first Book of Philosophy One of those Gods was call'd Oromasdes the other Pluto or Arimanius And Plutarch says That Mithra was a Mediatour-God whom the Persians plac'd between the other two The Chaldeans made Gods of the Planets two of which they made Good the other two Authors of Evil and the odd three to be promiscuous and middle trimming Gods half good and half evil The Greeks imputed all Good to Jupiter Olympius but Evil to Hades The Egyptians teach that Osiris was the Author of all Good but that Typho was the Author of Evil. And Plutarch says farther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very Name of Typho is a sufficient Indication of his Nature I shall not trouble my Reader with any more Instances of this Nature because how various and how different the Opinions of Philosophers were as to the Origin of Evil how obscure and confused they were in the Account they gave thereof all Men know that have been any ways conversant in these Controversies And Plutarch's Books de Iside and Osiride and de Procreatione Animae e Timaeo are undeniable and sufficient Evidences thereof In which Books besides the diversities before mentioned the Reader will soon find that the great Admirers of the Philosophers do not seem to understand them on this Subject But this indeed is no wonder since nothing is more plain than that they did not understand themselves Neither could it be otherwise since they were destitute of proper means requisite hereunto And now I appeal to any judicious Reader whether any thing can be more absurd more impious more contradictory to Right Reason than what Mr. Blount hath written concerning the Origin of Evil. And if the right Notion thereof could have been imprinted on Mens Minds by Nature without Scripture and Revealed Religion how is it possible so many Philosophers and whole Nations should have been guilty of such grand Absurdities as we have seen that they were Pag. 193. The Opinion of Plurality of Worlds seem more agreeable to God 's infinite for so must all God 's Qualities be communicative Quality to be continually making new Worlds since otherwise this Quality or Act of Creating would be only once exerted and for infinite duration lie useless and dormant ANSWER The Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds was maintained by several of the ancient Philosophers as Anaximander Anaximenes Democritus Epicurus his Scholar Metrodorus and others who maintained an infinity of Worlds and their great Reason as Elias Cretensis says was from the infinite Power and Goodness of God On the contrary the Stoics would not allow above one World which they call the Universe and Plato endeavours to prove the same by three Arguments as may be seen in Plutarch in his first Book Chap. 5. of the Opinion of the Philosophers Of the same Opinion was his Scholar Aristotle who labours to prove the same in no less then two whole Chapters as to the Validity of his Arguments I shall not write any thing in particular thinking it much better to advise the Reader to consult him about this Subject This is notorious that what he takes upon himself to prove he commonly confirms by strong Reasons and indeed a Man shall scarce find any philosophical Subject but may by some means or other be collected out of his Writings Dr. Pearson assures us in his Dedication of Laertius to King Charles the Second that Dr. Harvey was commonly known to have said Nihil fere unquam in ipsis naturae penetralibus invenisse se quin cum Aristotelem suum pensiculatius evolveret idem ab illo aut exp●ica●um aut saltem cognitum reperiret He scarce ever found any thing among the Mysteries of Nature but when he had diligently perused the Books of Aristotle he found the same either explained or known by him So that I conceive that his Authority and Reasons to be a great Prejudice to the Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds 'T is reported of Aristotle that when he read the Mosaic Writings that he commended them for the Majesty of the Stile he thought it worthy of a

God The fault he found was that the Method was Unphilosophical which doth not command but perswades a Belief in the Reader without all Controversie he committed not that pretended Error in Moses And therefore I doubt not but the Reader will find more satisfaction in his Oracles of Reason for the Unity of the World then in Mr. Blount's for the plurality of Worlds But whatsomever liberty might be allowed Philosophers in this point because perhaps it may not plainly contradict any Principle of Reason which was the Rule they walked by The same ought not to be allowed to us for this Opinion certainly deserves a Censure in all who pretend to Christianity The Arguments made use of are very weak the Power of God is infinite his goodness is infinite and communicative yet his Power and his Goodness does not extend themselves beyond his Will and Pleasure This would make God a necessary Agent and deprive him of those Perfections he hath been pleased to bestow on some of his Creatures But that which exceeds all bellef is that Mr. Blount who makes this World we live in eternal and consequently uncreated and a God should yet in this place contend for a Plurality of Worlds and that upon a pious pretence for fear forsooth that the Act of Creating should only be once exerted and for an infinite Duration lie Dormant and Useless If this manner of Argumentation be allowed of into what absurdities may we fall Tully in his first Book De Finibus speaking of the difference between Epicurus and Democritus and that Epicurus corrupts and depraves what he pretends to correct in Democritus observes that he makes innumerable Worlds to have their Original and to perish daily Innumerabiles mundi qui oriantur interiant quotidie How agreeable is this false and ridiculous Assertion with our Author's Method The minute Declination of Atomes without an efficient Cause is absurd and unbecoming a Philosopher Yet 't is agreeable to this Method for this Declination is more according with God's Goodness then a constant natural Descent of Atoms in parallel Lines But this favour must not be afforded here since Mr. Blount by his approving Ocellus Lucanus hath banished with Epicurus and Descartes all final Causes from these Speculations Nay if this Method be allowed I know nothing in Epicurus's Natural Philosophy but may be defended although Tully hath abundantly proved him to be as bad a Naturalist as he was a Moralist or a Logician This Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds seems not to be so agreeable to Holy Scripture Certainly Moses's Relation of the Creation must needs be thought to be deficient if this Opinion be true for he menrions only one World which comprehended all Things This Opinion was also for some time accounted Heretical for Virgilius Bishop of Zalzburg was cast out of his Bishoprick excommunicated and condemned for a Heretick by Pope Zachary for this Opinion as the great Annalist Baronius acquaints us in the Year of our Lord 748. What Aventinus and others affirm of his Deprivation and Excommunication for holding there were Antipodes proves a mistake Although I doubt not but that Assertion would have given great Offence as may probably be gathered from Lactantius in the third Book of his Instit chap. 24. and from St. Austin of the City of God Book 16. Chap. 9. and from many others after them As also from the little Skill that Pope Zachary and the Popes about those Days had in the Mathematical Sciences I hope it may not be unpleasing to the Reader If I give him here a short account of the Resolution of this Question by Mersenus a late learned Jesuit and one that had the Reputation of a great Philosopher He thinks the Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds not to be Heretical nor against the Faith because as he says it doth not contradict any express place of Holy Scripture nor the determination of the Universal Church Yet he thinks it to be a very rash Opinion forasmuch as it repugns the Consent of the Fathers whose Authority notwithstanding he thinks to be of no such Weight in Matters Philosophical If the Jesuit had plainly proved this matter to be purely Philosophical he had not been wide of the Mark But the Method of Moses and his Silence in so great a Point makes his Reproof to be too mild this Opinion therefore to say the least of it is impious prophane and unbecoming a Christian What follows in Mr. Blount's Oracles touching revealed and natural Religion hath been often treated of in the foregoing Discourse in which I have proved the insufficiency of natural Religion as to the great ends of Man's Happiness and Misery in another World and other things incident to that Question Wherefore not being willing to trouble my Reader with long Repetitions I proceed to that which follows in this Section and relates to Ocellus Lucanus Pag. 210. If any Man should conceive the Vniverse to have been made he would not be able to find into what it should be corrupted and dissolved since that out of which it was made was before the Vniverse as that into which it shall be corrupted was after the Vniverse ANSWER That which made Ocellus Lucanus and Aristotle and others to fall into this great Error as to the World's Eternity were two great Mistakes which they looked on as undoubted Principles The one was that out of nothing something could not be produced and that whatsoever had a beginning must have an end and reciprocally whatsoever shall have no end had no beginning Whereas these pretended Maxims are not grounded on general Reason but only upon particular Observations of such things here below which are produced by the ordinary ways of Generation and Corruption Yet so difficult it is for a Man to retrieve himself from such Observations that it must be confessed that among all the Hypothesis of them who would destroy our holy Faith none is so plausible as that of the Eternity of the World And this made Scaliger in his sixty first Exercitation against Cardan Sect. 6. where he rejects the Arguments of Philoponus as frivolous for so he calls them to conclude sola religione mihi persuadetur mundum coepisse atque finem incendio habiturum Nothing but revealed Religion could induce me to believe that the World had a beginning and that it should have an end Pag. 210. Ocellus Lucanus says his Opinion is that the Vniverse admitteth neither Generation nor Corruption forasmuch as it ever was and ever shall be ANSWER It is very evident that our Naturalist proceeds in asserting his Principle of the usual Course of Generation and Corruption which is obvious to our Senses or on the Works of Art which always suppose pre-existent Matter which if we deny all his Arguments vanish And in truth he is guilty of that Sophism which the Logicians call Petitio Principii a begging of his Principle in taking that to be granted which is the thing to be proved And