Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	body_n	see_v	soul_n	2,772	5	5.0753	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67409	A sixth letter, concerning the sacred Trinity in answer to a book entituled, Observations on the four letters, &c. / by John Wallis ...	Wallis, John, 1616-1703.	1691 (1691)	Wing W605; ESTC R17999	12,230	22

any Man who had not a mind to cavil His next head is about the Opinions charged upon Socinus and the Socinians Concerning which I do not think it needful to trouble the Reader with repeating what I had said of those Opinions Let. iii. p. 44 45 46 47 48. and Let. iv p. 2 3 4 5 6. or what he now brings in excuse of it But shall leave it to the Reader to judge upon what is said on both sides whether I have not thereby fully proved the charge of the slight Opinion they have of the Scripture in competition with Reason when it crosses any of their beloved Tenets And yet if that be not enough himself directs p. 16. to Maresius and Lubertus where it seems is more to be found to the same purpose But his Plea for himself p. 16. I do admit That if Socinus have spoken erroneously or unadvisedly or hyperbolically he is not obliged to defend it nor do I know that he is obliged to be a Socinian He may renounce of Socinus what he pleases Whether he who defended the Thesis at Franeker were a Professed Socinian or but covertly so I tannot tell because I do not know the Man But I do not think it more strange to find a Socinian at Franeker notwithstanding the Synod of Dort than at London And sometime p. 16. he will hardly allow himself a Socinian nor any of his Party But I hope he will not deny Socinus to have been a Socinian Therefore so far at least I was right But he would not have me blacken a man long since dead who never did me any injury Very well He had before challenged me to maintain my charge against the Socinians And he now quarrels with me for so doing He will now hardly allow any to be a Socinian but Socinus himself and yet I must not blacken Socinus What am I then to do I will even leave it as it is and let the Reader judge And if he doubt whether I or my Adversary be more fair in our Quotations let him consult the places and judge accordingly And particularly that of Epist. 5. ad Volkelium I am at present not at home nor have Books about me But sure I am that Socinus doth there a few lines before what this Observator repeats directly deny that the Soul after death doth subsist according as I had affirmed though I cannot now recite the whole Sentence because I have not the Book at hand But this the Repeater whether by Docking or Decapitation thinks fit to omit And then I presume the Reader will then find that per se is not meant so by it self or of his own nature as not by the gift and grace of God for so it might as well be said of the Soul before death but so by it self as not in conjunction with the body and then the sense must be that though the Soul with the Body be praemiorum poenarum capax yet the Soul of it self without the Body is not so But I leave this and the rest wholly to the Readers Judgment to judge upon view as he shall see cause Adding this also that he will find it is not onely as to this Point of the Trinity that Socinus discovers so slight an opinion of the Scriptures in competition with Reason but in other Points also where they do not favour his opinions He had told us before of some body at Oxford who maintaining a Thesis against the Socinians was baffled by his Opponent Who or when this was he had not told us nor what that Thesis was He now tells us p. 16. It was a Thesis against the Socinians that they preferred Reason before Scripture Perhaps when he recollects himself or consults his Informer he may find if any such thing happened as he suggests it was on some other Thesis and not against the Socinians but against the Arminians But be it as he says I know nothing of it and shall not concern my self about it But in requital of this story I told him another of Sandius who having proposed a Challenge upon his Problema Paradoxum contrary to the Divinity of the Holy-Ghost was so answered by Wittichius that as appears by a Printed Letter published by his Friend and Partner in that Disputation they were so convinced as to change their opinion I now add that it so appears not only by his Friend 's Printed Letter but by another of Sandius himself to Wittichius which I have not seen and I think it was never printed but the Contents of it may be seen in another Treatise of Wittichius with this Title Causa Spiritus Sancti Victrix Printed at London 1682. But this matter he says is both Vnskilfully and Vnfairly related Why unskilfully why unfairly He says Sandius was an Arian Be it so not a Socinian Very well Nor did I say that he was but a Friend of the Socinians He was an Anti-trinitarian and did promote against the Trinitarians the common cause of Arians and Socinians though these perhaps might quarrel amongst themselves But this Observator thought it seems because I did not call him an Arian that I did not know him so to be And this I guess is what he calls unskilful But I can give him a better reason why I should not call him so I did not then know I should have an Arian Adversary to deal with for my Arian Adversary did not yet appear But my Socinian Adversary was already upon the stage and with him I was now dealing Yet I could not say that Sandius was a Socinian but that the Socinian might be concern'd in the story I said He was a Friend of theirs And what Vnskilfulness appears in this Had I then known what since I do that I was to be attacqued by an Arian also I should rather have called him an Anti-trinitarian which had been common to both But knowing then of none but a Socinian Adversary I chose to call him a Friend of theirs Which was neither Vnfair nor Vnskilful Perhaps he thinks if not Vnskilful 't was at best Vnfair to say that his Partner and He changed their opinion But was it not so doth not his Associate expresly tell us in the very Title-page of his Letter of thanks for those Animadversions per quas animadversiones errores suos rejicere coactus est whereby he was constrained to relinquish his Errors Well but did they change all their Opinions did they relinquish all their Errors I believe not But that opinion which was then in dispute his Problema Paradoxum and the Errors therein And if he consult the Book he 'll find it was so And that this Paradox was it which he did relinquish And what his Paradox was he might there see it as well as I. Nor had he told me who and when and upon what Question his supposed Anti-Socinian was baffled by his Opponent or how I might come to know it And even now when he pretends to tell me the Question I