Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	divine_a	reason_n	revelation_n	1,589	5	9.4988	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44658	A twofold vindication of the late Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and of the author of The history of religion the first part defending the said author against the defamations of Mr. Atterbury's sermon and ... : the charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson consider'd ... : the second containing remarks on the said sermon ... : and a word in defence of the ... Bishop of Sakisbury, by another hand.	Howard, Robert, Sir, 1626-1698.	1696 (1696)	Wing H3006; ESTC R9361	74,122	190

perfectfectly to no purpose for what needed Revelation in things that are obvious and plain without it Concerning the Understanding which we have of our own Nature and the nature of other things I shall say nothing because that Subject is now treated of with so clear and exact a fulness as must needs surprize satisfy and please impartial thinking Men. The Author starts out into the World early and young but with so vast a stock of Learning it would be look'd on not without Admiration in the Chair of a Venerable Professor But whether we perfectly understand our own Composition whether we have adequate Conceptions of the nature of things or no what 's that to the nature of Religion In Religion some Propositions are to be believ'd some Commands to be obey'd and it is absolutely necessary that both of them be so very plain that an honest-minded Man may certainly understand them for tho it must be confess'd we do not pay so ready Obedience as we ought to the plain Commands of our Almighty Lawgiver yet were his Commands wrote in mysterious words hard to be understood it would be impossible to obey them at all So in Propositions to be believ'd tho our beloved Vices may much retard our Assent even after we understand the sense of them and perceive their Probability yet if we do not both understand the Sense of them and perceive their Probability it is impossible we should believe them or think them to be true which is what is meant by believing If any one should object that tho we understand the sense of the Article of the Resurrection yet we do not perceive the Probability but nevertheless are oblig'd to believe it I reply That we not only understand the Sense but also perceive the Probability of this fundamental Article For 1. It is confess'd that the Resurrection of the Dead does not imply a Contradiction 2. We suppose it possible only to the Power of God who can do all things not implying a Contradiction 3. We believe it will be because we believe that that is a faithful History wherein it is recorded that God who is true as well as Almighty hath promis'd to raise the Dead So now I may venture to tell the Libeller who with plain dulness pleads not but betrays the Cause of mysterious Priest-craft that if our Reason cannot dive to the bottom of an Article in Religion neither can our Belief dive to the bottom of it if we understand but in part we believe but in part and that part which puzzles our Reason exceeds our Belief But why would the Libeller have us believe to the bottom of an Article when to the bottom we cannot dive What is to be got by believing more than we can understand nothing nothing to the poor Believer neither in this World nor in that which is to come but very much for the Man that coins the Article and imposes it under the Penalty of Hell and Damnation The Priest gains a sort of Divine Honour to himself by his mysterious Article and he that commands our Affections will one way or other have a Finger in our Purses The latter part of the Period above quoted carries this sense That part of Supernatural Religion to the bottom of which our Reason can dive is no Revelation or reveal'd to no purpose because Revelation is not needful in things which are plain and obvious without it The wildness and falseness of this Assertion will be clearly seen by Instance Our Reason can dive to the bottom that is plainly understand the sense of this Article God hath appointed a day wherein he will judg the World by the Man Christ Jesus and yet we could not have div'd to the bottom of it if God had not plainly reveal'd it for the vertuous Discourses of the Heathens were enforc'd but with a conjectural and doubtful Supposition of a future Judgment it was the Man Christ Jesus who openly and assuredly proclaim'd that Doctrine and God Almighty credited his Testimony with Signs and Wonders above the ordinary Power of Nature nay as a satisfactory Earnest of the general Resurrection Christ in his Life-time rais'd one or two from the dead and together with himself many others also did arise from Death That we now know there will be a Resurrection and a Day of Judgment does not prove we could have known it without Revelation but that we could not have known it without Revelation plainly proves that it was reveal'd to good purpose and tho Revelation be not necessary in things plain and obvious yet it was necessary in things not plain to make them plain and it is not the part of a Minister of the Gospel to obscure the Doctrines and Notions which his Master made plain and certain I did not think to have taken the Libeller to task for any other of his wild Talk about Mystery because all the common Mistakes on that Topick are so manifestly discover'd by a very great Master that I do not expect a Man of Reputation will in haste venture a Defence against him But one artificial pleasant stroke I must not balk A Mystery says the Libeller defining it like a Logician is not that whereof we know nothing at all But I will dispute with him this his Negative Definition and prove that if that to which he gives the Name of Mystery be any thing it is that whereof we know nothing at all I prove it thus If that which we do know be not at all mysterious now we do know it then the Mystery if such a thing there be must consist in that whereof we know nothing at all thus his Negative Definition is utterly ruined I will load his Affirmative with Inconvenience A Mystery says he is that whereof we know something tho not all Then say I he himself is a Mystery for tho we know him for a Slanderer of the best of Men a Libeller of our just and legal Government under King William yet this is but knowing him in part and viewing an imperfect Draught of a very ugly Picture no Man living knows how many worse Devils are harbour'd in his mysterious Heart I am in haste to take leave of this Topick yet casting my Eye backward cannot forbear remembring him of one grave piece of dull false reasoning 't is this Is not Heaven a Mystery to us Do we understand it perfectly Can we describe it and is it not reasonable is it not necessary that the Methods of fitting us for it and of conveying us thither should be very mysterious to us I reply 1. This making Mysteries of the Holiness which God requires and the Happiness which he promises is a treacherous giving up the Cause of Religion and a shameful Temptation to downright Atheism A very mysterious Promise at most is but a cold Enforcement of Duty and a very mysterious Duty is in danger to be ill perform'd even by the Man that is well disposed 2. Heaven is in some measure