Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	begin_v	great_a	time_n	1,599	5	3.2122	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A71108	The reflections on the XXVIII propositions touching the doctrine of the Trinity, in a letter to the clergy, &c. maintain'd, against the Third defence of the said propositions by the same hand.	Tindal, Matthew, 1653?-1733.	1695 (1695)	Wing T1304; ESTC R4525	56,470	59

Power did out of nothing bring into being all things that now are His Ldp. understands the Terms and believes the thing Let him if he can tell me as distinctly what Idea he has of necessary Emanation Will he explain it by eternal Procession I reply That which was from all Eternity cannot be imagined to proceed from another without reversing the certain fixt Sense of words He says that necessary Emanation is the Word of the Fathers and a better cannot be found out to express what is intended by it and I tell him no Man could ever yet intelligibly declare what is intended by it His Ldp. bids as fair as any Man for it when he calls it a more excellent Way of existence than by Creation which till it be explained how shall we judg whether it be so or no If there be which I know not there may be for ought he knows a more proper Phrase for it P. 27. his Ldp. quotes Lines from my MS. Papers he quotes right but I omitted two words I would have that Period read thus That some thing should NECESS ARILY and ETERNALLY come from God which wants some Perfection that God has is A. T 's prodigious Supposition under the Name of Necessary Emanation Now whereas I endeavoured to display the Absurdity and Impossibility of this in some few Questions his Ldp. seems to agree with much of what I would infer only merrily taxes me for giving Reasons for things so plain they need none which is a mortifying Stroke to me for he takes such care of giving no Reasons for what he says that I shall never have an Opportunity to be reveng'd on him But in the Conclusion of the Page he tells me it is Nonsense to talk of God's begetting infinite Power Wisdom and Goodness I grant it just such Non-sense as it is to talk of begetting an infinitely powerful wise and good Being As for his Lordship 's metaphysical Distinction of Priority of Time and Priority of Nature whereby he would defend his 13th Prop. 't is a dark Riddle and a tempting Subject for Sarcasm but out of Reverence to his Ldp. all I shall say is that it is a Distinction that can explain nothing nor can any one explain that We know what 's meant by Priority of Time and Priority of Excellence if Priority of Nature be neither of these 't is an empty word devis'd I believe with a bad Design but us'd now by those that are themselves deceiv'd by it P. 30. his Ldp. is pleas'd to undertake the Defence of an Instance Which he says he gave in this mention'd Prop. of an Effect every whit as old as the Cause of it namely of the Sun the cause of Light In which if there be any Possibility of Truth then we must add new Significations to words and acutely distinguish between Causes by the Force of which other things are effected and Causes which have no Causality in them between Effects which are effected by their Causes and Effects that are self-existent For that 2 and 2 make 4 is not more evident than that Causes by the force of which other things are effected are older than their Effects and that Effects that are effected by their Causes are later than their Causes He may as well make one and the same Body to exist in more places than one at one and the same time Thus Miracles are confined to no particular Church nor Age only there is this Difference Christ and the Apostles wrought Miracles to confirm their Doctrines but with the modern Teachers the Doctrines themselves are the Minacles To what I objected against this his coexisting Cause and Effect the Sun and its Light he gives me an Answer he meant for sacetious He could find in his Heart to grant me that the Sun was not the Cause of that Light which was created before the Sun I thank him But upon second Thoughts he will not grant me that l. 23. No not for all the Book of Genesis He might have spar'd the Book of Genesis he may use me as pleases He knows the Sun is the Cause of Light by his Eye-sight He might as well say His Head is the Cause of his Heel by his Feeling I say the Sun and Light which together began to be could not one be the Cause of the other but God the Cause of both at the same time and in the same manner of Causality His Lordship quotes a Scrap from my Papers and makes me by mangling my words talk Contradictions but my reasoning was what I have said that if the Sun and Light did begin to exist in the same Point of Time then the one cannot be the Cause of the other for that thing which is the Cause of another must be in respect of time before that other whereof it is the Cause That I may not omit any thing his Lordship thinks material I am oblig'd to take notice that in his first Defence of his Propositions p. 19. he tells the Reader His Explication speaks as great an Unity between them the Persons as is between the Sun and its Splendor and the Light of both Which in very plain English sounds thus between the Sun and its Light the Light of the Sun and the Light of the Sun's Light But that he may not pretend I misrepresent him let the Reader take his Discovery in his own Terms 1. Here 's the Sun 2. The Splendour of the Sun 3. The Light of the Sun 4. The Light of the Sun's Splendour After the Reader has mus'd a while on the distinct parts of his Lordship's Similitude let me recal to his Mind his Lordship's Notion of One God absolutely perfect in the highest Sense and of Two each of which is God but not absolutely perfect in the highest Sense yet as absolutely perfect in a lower Sense as two each of which is God can be who are not absolutely God in the highest Sense and then let me ask whether there is any thing in any other Hypothesis more apt to make Sport for Hereticks In truth had I not a greater Reverence for his Lordship's Vertue than his Reasoning I should not slip the Occasion of diverting my Friend Whereas I have told him that the two Propositions he boasts of for contradicting Arianism and Socinianism do also contradict some of their fellow-Propositions I now prove it by Induction If the Son and H. Spirit do necessarily and eternally exist then they are as self-existent as independent as pure Originals as God the Father if they necessarily and eternally exist then the Father as much emanates from and depends upon them as they emanate from and depend upon him so that his Hypothesis does not more contradict Arianism and Socinianism than it contradicts it self Heathenish Doctrines by their Inconsistency meet the Fate of Rome Heathen suis ipsa Roma viribus ruit I may now tell his Ldp. he has no way to expose me but by exposing my Argument but it 's much easier

over his Works and rule them by his Providence what Place shall we assign to another God Not in this World for it belongs to another nor over the World for he that made it is above it And if he be not in the World nor over the World where can he be above the World or God Is it in another World If so then he is nothing to us that governs not our World nor can his Power be great being confin'd to a certain Place If therefore he is neither in nor over this World nor any other for there is no other seeing all Parts of the Universe make but one World whereof the entire extent is fill'd by its Maker therefore he is no where for there is no Place for him But supposing him somewhere pray to what purpose plainly to none at all c. It will be said perhaps to provide for us but certainly he cannot provide for those he has not made It follows therefore that if he created nothing nor provides nor can be confin'd to a Place there is no other God at all but one from Eternity the only Creator of the Universe FINIS A REPLY TO The Second Defence OF THE XXVIII PROPOSITIONS Said to be wrote in Answer to a Socinian Manuscript BY The AUTHOR of that MS. no Socinian but a Christian and Unitarian Nullius addictus jurare in verba Magistri LONDON Printed in the Year MDC XCV A REPLY to the SECOND DEFENCE of the XXVIII Propositions said to be wrote in Answer to a Socinian Manuscript SIR I NOW find by Notice in the Gazette that your Learned and Worthy Friend whose Name you concealed from me is the Lord Bishop of Glocester He has published an Answer which he calls A Second Defence of his Propositions to a private Manuscript which he calls Socinian Which MS. to excuse his not publishing it he tells his Reader he had returned to you and had it not by him nor a Copy of it He saith he collected the Substance of it I believe what he thought the Substance but how shall the Reader judg of that since as a great Master tells us The Context the Stile and the Phraseology of an Author must be well considered by one that means to understand him perfectly But it seems he was not willing to lose an Opportunity to expose a Heretick tho' he strain'd Civility in so doing In the mean time my MS. gave occasion to encrease the Number of his explanatory Propositions But after this farther Explanation of his Explanation he is as obscure as ever tho' that to deal ingenuously is rather his Misfortune than his Fault for there are some things which will never be explain'd while the World stands such as necessary and eternal Emanation Divine Fecundity the Difference between Order of Time and Order of Nature One thing before I begin my Reply let me acquaint you with I am advised to pass by whatever does not concern the Cause to bear the Imputation of affected Poedantry Ignorance and Arrogance Contemptuous Charges enough to exercise the Patience of a well-compos'd Man and urge one of my Make to take out Letters of Reprisal at least by way of Self-defence to say something like that of Tully Non video in hâc meâ mediocritate ingenii quid despicere possit Antonius But I will submit my Resentment to my Adviser as obedient Sons are wont their Faith to their Mother and that not only for the Reason aim'd at by my Friend but also out of Respect to my Adversary and therein I shall please you whom I believe to be as you character him one of the most deserving of his Order But yet I beg leave to tell you that I do not hold my self oblig'd by this Promise to forbear exposing the Weakness of an unconcluding Argument or setting two contrary Sayings to stare one another in the face but from all Revilings from foolish Words designed to lessen his Lordship's just Esteem I shall religiously forbear If I sprinkle Salt it shall not grieve his Person P. 1. of the Defence c. whereas I had affirmed that the Trinitarians had in vain tried their Strength against the Unitarians his Lordship answers There 's no doubt of it if their Adversaries may be Judges I now affirm it if the Trinitarians themselves be Judges for the Modalists will not allow the Hypothesis of the Realists and the Realists despise theirs and then again the Ignoramus or Mystery-trinitarians esteem the Methods taken by both these Parties not only vain and fruitless as to the refuting the Unitarians but also dangerous and likely to overthrow their own great Article while both these Parties join and with full consent condemn the Ignoramus-trinitarians who press the Belief of a Trinity in the Godhead but cannot say what is meant by it What the modern Unitarians have taught in their late Tracts concerning this controverted Article some or other of their Adversaries teach as well as they For example the Unitarians have taught that if by Persons are meant Relations Capacities or Respects of God to his Creatutes then there may be more Persons than 3 in the Godhead because God hath the Capacities Respects or Relations of a Judg of an Oeconomus or Provider c. They have taught that a Mode or a Posture cannot be a Person that a Mode cannot be in God because Modes are changeable and God is not They look upon it as an inconceivable Extravagancy to fancy that God in one Mode or Posture begat himself in another and breath'd forth his Self by the help of his begotten Self in a proceeding third-Self And as to all these things Dean Sh k Mr. H w and the Bp. of Gl. have the same Sense as the Unitarians The Unitarians have taught that there are not 3 Persons in the proper Sense of that word not 3 distinct Essences Natures Spirits Minds or intelligent Beings in the Unity of the Godhead but that it 's down-right Tritheism to say it and equally idolatrous with the Polytheism of the Heathens Dr. S th teaches so likewise Dr. Wallis is of the same Opinion and the famous Bps. of Worcester and Sarum who will not declare plainly their own Sense both declare against this The Unitarians have taught that that Article which is propos'd ro be believ'd as necessary to Salvation is capable of being explained and that it 's very unjust not to say ridiculous to require Men to believe words whereof no certain Signification can be given Now if Dean Sherlock with all the Realists and his Friend Dr. South with all the Modalists were not of the Mind of the Unitarians in this Point would they think you take such Pains to explain the Article each after his own particular Manner Whatsoever single Affirmation you arraign the Unitarians upon upon the same you arraign a Majority of Trinitarians For I think I may reckon that no one of the three chief Divisions is equal to the other two In short the Majority of