Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	france_n	king_n	orange_n	2,955	5	10.1958	5	false

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 great many gross mistakes that where I had mentioned the Lords and Commons of England declaring the Prince of Orange to be King of England France and Ireland he mis-recites it p. 4. King of England Scotland and France as if the Parliament of England had taken upon them to dispose of the Kingdom of Scotland and not that of Ireland But of this and a many more I passed over without reflecting on it Because in his Language he is so very negligent and careless and otherwise obnotions that it were endless to reflect on all But I was obliged to take notice because it quite alters my Argument of what he says p. 4. that I say Three sides make one Cube c. which is neither true nor are they my words I argued not from three sides but from the three Dimensions of a Cube This he calls Trifling and would perswade us that side and dimension differ no more than Muting and his other word which is fitter for his mouth than mine But though he perhaps know-no difference between them yet he should not have cited it as my words and say that I say so when I did not For I ought to know better and that a Cube hath six sides though but Three Dimensions Nor did I argue from the six sides but from the Three Dimensions Yet I can forgive him this rather than when he doth it willfully though it mis-recite my Argument Because I believe it to be out of pure Ignorance not of Malice He doth not like p. 6. either This or any other Simile's and would have me no more to insist upon them But he must excuse me from taking his advice herein unless he understood it better than by what was now said he seems to do Because if he be not mistaken as I think he is they are very far from my purpose That is He thinks they do not prove the Trinity True These alone do not prove it nor was it intended they should But they prove what they were brought to prove that it is not a Contradiction or Inconsistent with Reason that there may be three somewhats which we call Persons that are but one God And thus much he had before granted and doth now again confirm it p. 3 4. 'T is true indeed he says I cannot say that there is a Contradiction in holding that there may be three Persons in God For saith he There be two sorts of Contradictions The one Express the other Implyed I cannot say there is a Contradiction in holding it Because I have not the Definition of the word God so exact as to raise an implied contradiction And for an express contradiction I do not pretend to it If therefore there be no Contradiction either Express or Implied It is what I was to prove But saith he The dispute shall not end here He will be allowed the Privilege and no body doth deny it him to fetch in the First Commandment to define the word God With all my heart I was never against it For what he says more than once p. 3 4. that I meanly cry he flies to Scripture is but another piece of his wonted Art of mis-reciting There is nothing to that purpose in any thing of mine I do sometime blame him for changing the state of the Question As when he would have me prove by Reason that It is so I tell him That is not the Question nor is that to be proved by Reason The Question is whether there is any thing in Reason why it cannot be so Now let him keep to the Question and then if he think he can prove from Scripture that it is Inconsistent with Reason for Three somewhats to be One God or that it is a Contradiction for God the Creator and God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier to be the same God or that it is Impossible for the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Iacob to be One and the same God Let him try his skill And let him make what use he can of the First Commandment to Define the word God so as to prove this a Contradiction But when he had claimed this Privilege and no body doth deny it He makes no use of it for any such Definition The truth is I had already granted him from that Commandment p. 23 24 25 28 29. more than he was willing I should grant That we are to have NO OTHER GOD Great or Little Equal or Unequal but the Lord God of Israel Yes says he There is one Supreme God another Creature-God But that this is not to have Two Personal Gods How so If these be Two Gods and each of them a Person compleat and entire of himself as really and properly and fully and personally distinct as a Man or Angel as he had before told us at p. 8. 14. they must needs be Two Personal Gods But we according to the First Commandment acknowledge but One God and those three somewhats whom in a metaphorical sense we call Persons not so to be distinct as to become Three Gods He hopes however to avoid the First Commandment by saying that though they be Two Gods they are not two Gods Co-equal p. 5. and that they worship the Son not with supreme Worship with Mediation not Adoration p. 6. What he means by his two Worships of Mediation and Adoration I do not well understand unless they be new Names for Doulia and Latria Nor do I remember that I have before heard of a worship of Mediation That Christ is our Mediator I know but did not know that he is our Worshipper And what doth he think of the Israelites when they Worshipped the Golden Calf Surely they did not think this Calf to be Co-equal with the Supreme God Nor did they think it to be Deus natus a God by Nature but Deus factus a Made God for themselves had made it just before Yet I never knew that this did excuse them from Idolatry He doth not own Christ to be the True God for such there is but One the only true God nor yet a false God but a Mean between both p. 6. Now 't is true the Heathen had their Deos medioxumos their Middling Gods But I never knew that we could worship such without Idolatry Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God the Supreme God and Him ONLY shalt thou serve was our Saviour's Doctrine Mat. 4. 10. And St. Iohn expresly calls him the True God 1 Joh. 8. 20. not a Middling God between True and False and therefore the same God with the Father the Only true God To that Character of Christ Rev. 1. 8 11. I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the First and the Last saith the Lord which IS and WAS and is TO COME the Almighty He says This stile is given him in opposition to Gods simpler one I AM. But he should have observed that the same title is at ver 4. given to God in Contradistinction