Selected quad for the lemma: friend_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
friend_n	worthy_a	write_v	year_n	129	4	4.1482	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

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