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	time_n	5,907	5	3.3926	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30486	A short consideration of Mr. Erasmus Warren's defence of his exceptions against the theory of the earth in a letter to a friend.	Burnet, Thomas, 1635?-1715.	1691 (1691)	Wing B5947; ESTC R36301	36,168	44

judgment as to rank this Arguer in any of the three orders if you have patience to read over his Pamphlet you will best see how and where to set him in his proper place We now proceed to those passages in the answer which probably have most exasperated the Author of the Exceptions and the Defence In his Exceptions he had said The Moon being present or in her present place in the Firmament at the time of the Chaos she would certainly trouble and discompose it as she does now the waters of the Sea and by that means hinder the formation of the Earth To this we answer'd that the Moon that was made the 4th day could not hinder the formation of the Earth which was made the 3d. day This was a plain intelligible answer and at the same time discover'd such a manifest blunder in the objection as could not but give an uneasie thought to him that made it However we must not deny but that he makes some attempt to shift it off in his Reply For he says the Earth formed the 3d. day was Moses's Earth which the Excepter contends for but the Earth he disputes against is the Theorist's which could not be formed the 3d. day He should have added and therefore would be hinder'd by the Moon otherwise this takes off nothing And now the question comes to a clear state for when the Excepter says the Moon would have hinder'd the formation of the Earth either he speaks upon Moses's hypothesis or upon the Theorist's hypothesis Not upon the Theorist's Hypothesis for the Theorist does not suppose the Moon present then And if he speaks upon Moses's Hypothesis the Moon that was made the 4th day must have hinder'd the formation of the Earth the 3d. day So that the objection is a blunder upon either Hypothesis Furthermore whereas he suggests that the Answerer makes use of Moses's hypothesis to confute his adversary but does not follow it himself 'T is so far true that the Theorist never said that Moses's six-days Creation was to be understood literally but however it is justly urg'd against those that understand it literally and they must not contradict that interpretation which they own and defend So much for the Moon and this first passage which I suppose was troublesome to our Author But he makes the same blunder in another place as to the Sun Both the Luminaries it seems stood in his way In the 10th Chapter of his Exceptions he gives us a new Hypothesis about the Origin of Mountains which in short is this that they were drawn or suckt out of the Earth by the influence and instrumentality of the Sun Whereas the Sun was not made according to Moses till the 4th day and the Earth was form'd the 3d. day 'T is an unhappy thing to split twice upon the same rock and upon a rock so visible He that can but reckon to four can tell whether the 3d. day or 4th day came sooner To cure this Hypothesis about the Origin of Mountains he takes great pains in his Defence and attempts to do it chiefly by help of a distinction dividing Mountains into Maritime and Inland Now 't is true says he These maritime Mountains and such as were made with the hollow of the Sea must rise when that was sunk or deprest namely the 3d. day Yet Inland ones he says might be raised some earlier and some later and by the influence of the Sun This is a weak and vain attempt to defend his notion for besides that this distinction of Maritime and Inland Mountains as arising from different causes and at different times is without any ground either in Scripture or reason if their different origin was admitted the Sun 's extracting these Inland Mountains out of the Earth would still be absurd and incongruous upon other accounts Scripture I say makes no such distinction of Mountains made at different times and from different causes This is plain seeing Moses does not mention Mountains at all in his six-days Creation nor any where else till the Deluge What authority have we then to make this distinction or to suppose that all the great Mountains of the Earth were not made together Besides what length of time would you require for the production of these Inland Mountains were they not all made within the six-days Creation hear what Moses says at the end of the 6th day Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finished and all the host of them And on the 7th day God ended his work which he had made Now if the Excepter say that the Mountains were all made within these six-days we will not stand with him for a day or two for that would make little difference as to the action of the Sun But if he will not confine their production to Moses's six days how does he keep to the Mosaical Hypothesis or how shall we know where he will stop in his own way for if they were not made within the six days for any thing he knows they might not be made till the Deluge seeing Scripture no where mentions Mountains before the Flood And as Scripture makes no distinction of Maritime and Inland Mountains so neither hath this distinction any foundation in Nature or Reason For there is no apparent or discernible difference betwixt Maritime and Inland Mountains nor any reason why they should be thought to proceed from different causes or to be rais'd at different times The Maritime Mountains are as rocky as ruderous and as irregular and various in their shape and posture as the Inland Mountains They have no distinctive characters nor any different properties internal or external in their matter form or composition that can give us any ground to believe that they came from a different Original So that this distinction is meerly precarious neither founded in Scripture nor reason but made for the nonce to serve a turn Besides what bounds will you give to these Maritime Mountains are they distinguisht from Inland Mountains barely by their distance from the Sea or by some other Character If barely by distance tell us then how far from the Sea do the Maritime Mountains reach and where do the Inland begin and how shall we know the Terminalis Lapis Especially in a continued chain of Mountains that reach from the Sea many hundreds of miles Inland as the Alpes from the Ocean to Pontus Euxinus and Taurus as he says fifteen hundred miles in length from the Chinese Ocean to the Sea of Pamphylia In such an uninterrupted Ridge of Mountains where do the Land-Mountains end and the Sea-mountains begin Or what mark is there whereby we may know that they are not all of the same race or do not all spring from the same original Such obvious enquiries as these shew sufficiently that the distinction is meerly arbitrary and fictitious But suppose this distinction was admitted and the Maritime Mountains made the 3d. day but Inland Mountains I know not