Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	call_v	name_n	write_v	6,549	5	5.6975	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67389	A fifth letter, concerning the sacred Trinity in answer to what is entituled, the Arians vindication of himself against Dr. Wallis's fourth letter on the Trinity / by John Wallis ...	Wallis, John, 1616-1703.	1691 (1691)	Wing W582; ESTC R18175	9,822	26

A Fifth LETTER Concerning the Sacred Trinity IN ANSWER To what is Entituled The Arians Vindication of himself against D r Wallis's Fourth Letter ON THE TRINITY By IOHN WALLIS D. D. LONDON Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside 1691. A FIFTH LETTER Concerning the Sacred Trinity SIR I Have met with an Answer to my Fourth Letter It is not Long and my Reply shall be but short There is very little in it concerning the Merits of the Cause save that he resolves to hold the Conclusion and as to Personal Reflections or Disdainful Expressions I do not think fit to trouble the Reader with a long Reply For those I think do not hurt me so much as him that useth them He is not pleased pag. 1. that I said I had Argued Calmly without Scurrillous Language or Reproachful Terms And I appeal to the Reader whether it be not so Nor doth he deny it And if his Language were so too he needed not to have made the Reader an Apology to excuse his Expressions that he might avoid the Character of a Common Railer p. 1. But he says Abating the little Subtilties and Artifices incomparably witty there is not the least Grain of weight in my Letter Of this the Reader is to be Judge both as to the Weight and as to the Wit He says It seems a Socinian wrote against me True And it seems he knew it For he cites him And that himself wrote as an Arian I think he should rather have said He wrote first as a Socinian in his first Ten pages and then as an Arian in the other Ten. For I do not find any thing till toward the end of his Tenth page whereby I could judge him other than a direct Socinian And I think it will so appear to any other Reader He takes to himself the name of Unitarian by which I do not find the Arians were wont to be called But it is a new Name which the Socinians have taken up to distinguish themselves both from Us and from the Arians For the Arians are rather Pluritarians as holding more Gods than One. And the Book to which himself refers us p. 4. is intituled The History of the Unitarians otherwise called Socinians And in p. 11. where he first mentions the Arians he doth introduce it with a Preface minding me that I write against Arians as well as Socinians As having till then spoke for the Socinians only not for the Arians And even in his tenth page toward the beginning of it what had been said of the Socinians by name and of Socinus in particular he takes to himself as if one of that Party He seems saith he of me to insinuate an aspersion on US that WE believe not Angels He tells us now p. 3. He doth believe them and I will suppose also that he doth believe the Soul's Immortality But when he there says that I bring a World of Arguments to prove the Immortality of the Soul he mistakes again For those Arguments were brought against Socinus not to prove the Soul's Immortality but that the Soul in its separate condition was capable of Pain or Pleasure which Socinus denied For requital to this he tells me he had a good mind to prove the Existence of a Deity for that he had heard of some men of the Profession of the Church of England that have almost been Atheists at the heart And truly if he should do so I should not think it much amiss For I have heard the same suspected of some Socinians He now tells me p. 2. He never was a Socinian in his Life Of what he had been in the former part of his Life I had said nothing For I knew no more what it was than who he is But p. 37. of what he was in the beginning of his Discourse And 't is plain he there writes like a direct Socinian as was shewed but now though as an Arian some time after He tells me p. 2. that he is neither the Socinian nor his Friend who assisted in his first Book Neither did I say that he is but that he might be for ought I knew But whether he be or not 't is the same thing to me for I am yet to fight in the dark with I know not whom He says He is not concerned to defend Socinus or any man who hath dropt imprudent words Nor did I require it of him And whether he were or were not the same man who wrote before yet since here he acts another Person I left it free for him p. 1 2. to decline if he pleased what was said before to grant what was there denied or deny what was there granted But then he thinks p. 1. I should not charge him with writing Contradictions because such things may possibly be found in the others Answer Nor do I. This is only a piece of his wonted Artifice of Mis-reciting me I tell him indeed it is hard to please them both when they do not agree amongst themselves And I did observe and argue from it what he grants though the other had denied it But I never charge him with what the other had said And if he look it over again he will find that I did not confront him to shew thence a contradiction with what the other had said But did confront what himself had said in his ten first pages with what he says in the other ten And 't is manifest that in the first ten he acts the Socinian and in the latter ten the Arian But in whether of the twain he acts his own part it was not easie to determine till he now tells us he is an Arian He had argued p. 8 14. That the Trinity are Persons as really and as properly and fully personally distinct as Three Angels And each Person both Son and Holy-Ghost by name compleat and intire in himself with as compleat Personal distinction as that in Men and Angels From whence when I inferred his owning the Personality of the Holy-Ghost He fearing it seems he had over-shot himself now tells us p. 4. just as much as becomes on Arian But if he own him to be as much a Person as a Man or Angel is a Person it is as much or perhaps more than we need contend for in this point I had charged him also with mis-reciting me in many other things As when I am introduced very often as talking of Two Gods Three Gods Personal Gods of adding several Persons to our one God and the like according as here also he says p. 7. that I say you your self own Two Gods and why may not I then Three when he knows very well this is not my Language nor is any thing of all this said by me To this he now says p. 5. 'T is true enough he doth so but that he doth it by Inference But he should then speak it as his Inference not cite it as my words I might have taken notice amongst