Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	great_a	see_v	think_v	3,978	5	3.8757	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A38042	Socinianism unmask'd a discourse shewing the unreasonableness of a late writer's opinion concerning the necessity of only one article of Christian faith, and of his other assertions in his late book, entituled, The reasonableness of Christianity as deliver'd in the Scriptures, and in his vindication of it : with a brief reply to another (professed) Socinian writer / by John Edwards ...	Edwards, John, 1637-1716.	1696 (1696)	Wing E214; ESTC R3296	60,720	171

Necessary Truths may be distinguish'd from those that are not such by the Nature and High Importance of them by their Immediate respect to the Author and Means of our Salvation Besides I suppose this Flourishing Scribler he knows very well why I give him that particular Title will not deny that the Epistles contain divers Rules of Holy Living several Religious Precepts in order to the practise of Godliness and that these are not so promiscuously and without distinction mixt with other Truths but that they may easily be distinguish'd from them Why then may we not expect to find Necessary Doctrines of Faith in these Writings as well as Instructions concerning the practise of Holiness and the regulating of our Lives And why may we not distinguish between these and the Occasional Matters as well as between the Others and them Nay it is certain that those Necessary doctrines of Faith which were but lightly touch'd upon in the Gospels and the Acts are distinctly and fully explain'd in these Epistles The truth then is that the Gentleman was loth to go any further than the former these latter affrighted him for he knew either by reading them or by hear-say that there were several Other Divine Truths in them which have been generally thought to be Necessary to be believ'd in order to making a man a Christian but our Author had no kindness for them He commands his Readers not to stir a jot further than the Acts. It is not in the Epistles saith he that we are to learn what are the Fundamental Articles of faith p. 295. They were written for resolving of doubts and reforming of mistakes as he saith in the same place and therefore I forbid you to seek for Fundamental doctrines there you will but lose your labour and moreover you will meet in these Writings with several Points which we approve not of and therefore must not admit of because Faustus Socinus hath given us a charge to the contrary But let us hear further what this Vindicator saith to excuse his rejection of the Doctrines contain'd in the Epistles and his putting us off with One Article of Faith What if the Author meaning himself design'd his Treatise as the Title shews chiefly for those who were not yet throughly or firmly Christians purposing to work upon those who either wholly disbeliev'd or doubted of the Truth of the Christian Religion p. 6. Here he comes with his what if's and gives another palpable proof of Counterfeiting and that in Religion Now seeing his Book is sifted and the design of it is laid open he would make us believe that he intended his Piece for Atheists Turks Iews and Pagans and a few Weak Christians for these he must mean by those that wholly disbelieve and those that are not firmly Christians And he would bring in his Title to speak for him but it saith not a word in his behalf for how those that wholly disregard and disbelieve the Scriptures of the New Testament as Gentiles Jews Mahometans and all Atheists do are like to attend to the Reasonableness of Christianity as deliver'd in the Scripture is not to be conceived and therefore we look upon all this as mere Sham and Sophistry He is put hard to it and like one a drowning he fastens on any thing next at hand That is his case as any man may perceive But I ask Why had we not a hint one gentle hint at least of this in all his Book It would have been very useful to the Reader to have been acquainted with his Design No he thinks otherwise for in the same Page he saith Would any one blame his Prudence if he mention'd only those Advantages viz. of Christ's Coming which all Christians especially Socinian Christians are agreed in He hath bethought himself better since he first publish'd his Notions and as the result of that he now begins to resolve what he writ into Prudence I know whence he had this Method and 't is likely he hath taken more than this from the same hands viz. from the Missionary Iesuites that went to preach the Gospel to the people of China We are told that they instructed them in some matters relating to our Saviour they let them know that Iesus was the Messias the Person promised to be sent into the World but they conceal'd his Sufferings and Death and they would not let them know any thing of his Passion and Crucifixion So our Author their humble Imitator undertakes to instruct the World in Christianity with an omission of its Principal Articles and more especially that of the Advantage we have by Christ's Death which was the Prime thing design'd in his Coming into the world This he calls Prudence so that to hide from the people the Main Articles of the Christian Religion to disguise the Faith of the Gospel to betray Christianity it self is according to this Excellent Writer the Cardinal Vertue of Prudence May we be deliver'd then say I from a Prudential Racovian He would clear himself by quoting Rom. 14. 1. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye p. 7. as if that Text authorized him to deceive Novices and Weak Christians as if because they are Infirm therefore he must Strengthen them by Imposing upon them It may be he will say Children must have but few Lessons given them but I answer there is difference between few and only One and there is difference between telling them that there is but One and afterwards hinting that there are More For that must be the meaning of his What if he design'd his Treatise chiefly for those c. What if he first of all tells them that nothing is absolutely requisite to be believed but this that Iesus is the Messias and what if afterwards he intends to let them know that something else is requir'd of them And yet at the same time such is the unaccountable humour of the Gentleman he declares that Nothing more is requir'd of them Here is no bottom for any thing he saith He contradicts himself and imposes falsities upon mens minds he would in one place I remember fancifully please himself by thinking that all his sins which I espie in his book are sins of Omission p. 9. But if this be not one of Commission and that a very Great one it is hard to tell what is He pretends a Design of his Book which was never so much as thought of till he was sollicited by his brethren to vindicate it But now see how his Pious Frauds prosper when he hath attempted it they are displeased with the way he hath taken And no wonder because they cannot but perceive that his Vindication is inconsistent with his Treatise and that by these last Evasions and Collusions he hath in a great measure betray'd their Cause as well as that of Christianity I find that they have only this to excuse him that he did not take Time enough to consider of what he Writ but for my part I think that

for a man shall scarcely hear a more Audacious word though 't is true he endeavours to mollifie it with an if As to what he saith about my taking notice of the Gentleman 's slighting the Epistolary Writings I have fully answered it in the foregoing Papers and therefore shall add no more here He proceeds next to those Socinan Authors whose undue Notions concerning God I glanc'd upon The Author of the Considerations c. in reply to the Right Reverend Bishop who had from the notion of God's Eternity inferr'd that he was Self-existent or from himself hath these words What makes him viz. the Bishop say God must be from himself or self-originated for then he must be before he was which this Writer concludes to be a Contradiction Therefore he would make this Conclusion that God's Self-existence is a Contradiction I know it will be pretended that this is the Consequence only of the Bishops Notion of Eternity but it is plain that that Writer makes use of this Arguing to shake the belief of the Eternity and Self-Existence of the Allmighty and that will appear from what he further adds in way of Exception to what that Reverend Person saith afterwards concerning God's Eternity This Examinator talks of a false notion of Self-existence but doth not say what it is If I have mistaken the Considerer let him write plainer another time As to the Examinator's question How the Second and Third Persons can be Self-existent I answer They are Self-existent as they are eternally from the Self-same Deity Though according to the Nicene Creed Christ be God of God yet that doth not infring his Self-Existence because those words are not spoken of the Essence of Christ which is common to him with his Father but of his Personality He being the same with the Father as to the former hath his Existence of himself but differing from the Father as to the latter he is rightly said to be from him or of him as he is the Second Person in the Trinity This is easily reconciled with what he saith an Other Bishop asserts if this Vnitarian hath not a mind to quarrel In the next Paragraph he is quite non-plus'd for I had charg'd the Sacinian Authors with their denial of God's foreknowing future Contingencies and consequently denying the Omniscience of God which is an inseparable Attribute of the Deity and he having nothing to reply to the purpose first tells us he is not concern'd in it p. 18 whereas every one knows that he being one of the Party is concern'd Secondly assoon as he had as it were renounced the Socinian doctrine by saying he was not Concern'd in it he presently owns it for Truth as those words import p. 18. to deny his foreknowledg of the certainty of that which is not certain c. which is as much as to say that there are some things that are Uncertain and therefore Unknowable and these God can have no knowledg of And yet thirdly he would seem to hint that it is a dishonourable thing to God those are his words that he should not have a foresight of these things Thus Confused is our Author which shews he is not fit to be an Examiner of other mens Writings when he can't write Consistently himself but in three or four lines hath as many Blunders In the next words and what follows he perfectly gives up the Cause p. 18. for I had laid this to the charge of the Racovians that they denied the Immensity or Omnipresence of God which is a Property or Perfection never to be disjoyn'd from the Deity whereupon he tamely acknowledges that Crellius and the rest of the Fraternity are of this perswasion Only because the Gentleman must be wagging his tongue he gives us a scrap out of a Latin Poet and just names a Greek Father who never said any thing to that matter and so we are rid of them But he comes on again and goes off assoon for he barely mentions the Spirituality of God which I had asserted to be another Divine Excellency and it is such an Attribute of God that we can't conceive of him without it and therefore it is made the short and comprehensive Definition of him that he is a Spirit Iohn 4. 24. In my Discourse which this Examinator calls in question I took notice that the Socinians denied this Property of the Deity which I justly tax'd as an Atheistick Tang and I think it was a mild term for it is a Rank Sign of a great tendency to Atheism to deny that God is a Spirit i. e. an Immaterial Incorporeal Being But our present Author resolves himself into the opinion of those modest Divines who by their Blushing can be no other than Socinus's Scholars who determine nothing about the Point which is as much as to say he and they deny it But you must know they are now a little upon their Credit this Gentleman who speaks in the name of the rest had before given up the Immensity and Omniscience of God and therefore it is high time now to be upon the Reserve and to pause a little that the world may not see that they reject All those Properties of the Deity which I mention'd But notwithstanding this cunning practice of theirs the world may see yea it cannot but plainly see that they deny every one of these Divine Attributes more or less and this particularly which I mention'd last viz. that God is a Spirit properly so call'd For whereas I quoted Socinus and Crellius their Grand Patriots to prove this denial this Writer takes no notice of my doing so which lets us see that the opinion of those Great Masters is humbly submitted to by all the rest So now I hope the Reader is convinc'd that I was not Vnjust to the Socinians that I did not highly injure them as they have cried out when I charg'd them with Atheism or a Strong Tendency to it in some Points I tax'd them with denying these four Attributes the Self-Existence the Omniscience the Omnipotence the Spirituality of God and lo this professed Son of Socinus who was chosen out with great deliberation and judgment without doubt from the rest of his brethren to undertake the Cause to refute what I had alledg'd against them and who questionless hath said all that he could in the Case lo I say this professed and known Writer of the Brotherhood confirms and ratifies what I have laid to their charge For he produces the words out of their own Author which I referr'd to whence it appears that he had a mind to distort the Right Reverend Bishop of Worcester's words and to argue against the Self-Existence of God This Examinator without any more ado rejects the Second and third Attributes and by his boggling at the fourth we know what must be the fate of that Thus he and his fellow-Criminals being conscious to the truth and Justice of the Charge confess themselves Guilty They are so far from clearing themselves