Questions

This is a list of all the questions and their associated study carrel identifiers. One can learn a lot of the "aboutness" of a text simply by reading the questions.

identifier	question
A67389	And what doth he think of the Israelites, when they Worshipped the Golden Calf?
A67389	Did the Iews ever hear of it before Christianity?
A67389	How so?
A67389	I tell him indeed, it is hard to please them both, when they do not agree amongst themselves?
A31061	29. and the comprehension whereof he hath reserved unto himself?
A31061	At least in any case it should be mute, or ready to follow Job, saying, Behold, I am vile, what shall I answer thee?
A31061	Being an Answer to this Question, Why do you believe the Doctrin of the Trinity?
A31061	These things which every day we see and taste, we do not know; and are we curious about the Essence of God?
A31061	Wherefore do we stretch our Judgment beyond its Limits, unto Things so infinitely exceeding it?
A67385	26. first argues the Possibility of it; Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the Dead?
A67385	But because we do not know a How the bones grow in the womb of her that is with child, shall we therefore say they do not grow there?
A67385	But what is it that is thus pretended to be Impossible?
A67385	If God say, c These Three are One?
A67385	If God say, d The word was God, and, The word was made Flesh, shall we say, Not so, only becaue we can not tell How?
A67385	King Agrippa, believest thou the Prophets?
A67385	Now what Inconsistence is there in all this?
A67385	shall we say, they are not?
A67408	And if these Infinite Spirits be Inseparable, why do you grant the number Three to that name, and not to the name of Gods?
A67408	Besides, what are they,''pray, if not Substances?
A67408	But what need we trouble our selves with these Niceties, or Names of these Degrees of Distinction?
A67408	But, pray, Why not as properly three Gods, as three Infinite Spirits?
A67408	For the notion of a Substance, is, of that which may subsist by it self: And what mark have we of separability but Real Distinction?
A67408	If you can not tell me, precisely, what they are: How should I tell you, How they Differ?
A67408	What partiality is it then to allow the one, and not the other?
A67408	Where is the fourth of this Syllogism?
A60952	And now can this Man pretend to speak these Things in the Person of one who thus Abhors, Abominates, and Detests them?
A60952	But did his Adversary, Dr. Owen, ever speak so?
A60952	In which case, who must be the Person drawing them?
A60952	Or charge them as the necessary Consequences of his Doctrine, without proving, or by any formed Argument so much as offering to prove them so?
A60952	Or use the Expressions here uttered by this Author?
A67368	And if to maintain( obstinately) That there be Three Gods;( that is, Three Eternal Infinite Minds or Spirits;) be not Heresy, What is?
A67368	And if we should add, It may be supposed, that the rest is so too; would not this be as good a Proof?
A67368	But is it there said, He may not advise with more than six?
A67368	But what are those Wise and Learned Men to do?
A67368	But, supposing their Authority, he asks, How far their Authority extends?
A67368	Especially when they are all Unanimous?
A67368	If instead of calling six Heads, he call them All, is there any hurt in this?
A67368	Now, if you ask, How he knows all this?
A67368	Which might furnish him with new Topicks of Railing and Triumphing: Would not, It may be supposed, do as well here?
A59787	( g) For what?
A59787	And what can be urg''d more against us in respect of Transubstantiation?
A59787	But are these the true and only Grounds of the Doctrine of that Holy Mystery?
A59787	But, Sir, to be short, What relation has this to the present Parallel of the Trinity and Transubstantiation?
A59787	Convert, Do n''t you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity?
A59787	Say you so, my Friend, then why must I believe the Trinity?
A59787	The Sacramental Body of Christ is cloathed with the Species of Bread, is it so in Heaven too?
A59787	for not believing Transubstantiation as well as the Trinity?
A59787	if not, how is the same Body at the same time, with and without the Species of Bread?
A59787	what if I will believe neither?
A40072	Again, Is not Absolute Independence a Real Perfection, and Being the First Original of all things another?
A40072	And where is he who will pretend to know how many Degrees, or Kinds of Unity are possible, or actually are?
A40072	But doth not the Sixth Proposition considered with the Fifth, ascribe both these too to the Father onely?
A40072	But how is he guilty of such Contradictions?
A40072	Doth not the Fourth Proposition expresly say that he is Self- Existent too?
A40072	How is it possible that this Author should overlook such an Obvious Reasoning, or not be Satisfied with it?
A40072	Is it not this, A Being Absolutely Perfect; or, a Being that hath all Perfections?
A40072	What is the Definition of God among all Divines and Philosophers?
A62587	And again, Is there any God besides me?
A62587	And what is this less in effect than to say, That there are three Gods?
A62587	Are we not all the Sons of Adam, who was the Son of God?
A62587	But to what purpose?
A62587	Is there not One God, and are we not all his Offspring?
A62587	Yes, say they, why not?
A62587	but may ask further, Is God divided?
A62587	hath not One God created us?
A39364	5, For unto which of the Angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?
A39364	And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
A39364	But pray, what Authority have you to call the Son a God- Angel, as you do?
A39364	Did only the Man dye?
A39364	Hath he ascrib''d to the Divine Essence Properties which he calleth Persons, that are not in it?
A39364	If Mr. Hooker could Err about the Trinity, what will the Phanaticks and Trimmers say?
A39364	In your Clear Confutation( as you call it) you have these words: A Trinity supposes Three Persons in God: And why but Three?
A39364	Is there in that Confession of Faith any thing, which doth not at all times edify, and instruct the attentive Reader?
A39364	Now if Abraham Believ''d the Gospel preached unto him, did he not Believe in Christ?
A39364	Was only the Man Tempted?
A39364	What Measures, or Opinions then can the Unlearned take from their( disputing) Leaders?
A39364	Would he have a Divinity that is not Wonderful, or Incomprehensible?
A39364	what wou''d the man be at?
A67386	And if the Scripture speak of them as Three Persons; why should we scruple to call them so?
A67386	And shall we doubt what God himself tells us because we can not comprehend it?
A67386	And what satisfaction can be competent to the offended Deity?
A67386	But if we neither See, nor Hear of, nor have any Notion of the things that are made; how shall we thence derive the Notion of a God?
A67386	Do they think the Wisdom and Power of the Almighty are to be bounded by the Scanty Limits of their Vnderstanding?
A67386	I say when we consider these, what necessity is there of limiting and confining God Almighty here?
A67386	Is it not that God, whose Justice is infinite, that is offended?
A67386	Is it not the same God, who is also Infinite in Goodness and Mercy that is appeased?
A67386	Is the Eternal Mind any whit multiplied or divided by giving a Rational Soul or Mind to Man?
A67386	Is the principle of Essentiality and Vitality any whit divided in or from the Deity by giving Life and Being to those Creatures?
A67386	May we not as reasonably think, that if in his infinite Wisdom he so thought fit, he might as well make a Being yet more perfect?
A67386	THE Metaphysicians I remember teach us that one way to know the Deity is by way of Eminency, Is there any good or perfection in the Creature?
A67386	Were Men or Angels fit to mediate, or could they make a satisfaction?
A67386	What necessity then to think that the Godhead must be either multiplied or divided, or in any wise varied by acting the Divinity in the Humane Nature?
A67386	What room for his Mercy, without derogation to his Justice, unless there be satisfaction?
A67390	4. or Because by his Wisdom and Power he made the World; Therefore his Wisdom and his Power are distinct Gods from himself?
A67390	And asks, If I ever knew an Unitarian, especially an Arian, deny him that Character?
A67390	And what is there in all this of Inconsistent Absurdity?
A67390	And, if there be no Contradiction in it, why should we be afraid to say, what in Scripture is said so plainly?
A67390	But how?
A67390	But what then?
A67390	But, why so displeased with these Simile''s?
A67390	Hear, O Israel) the Lord Our God is One Lord?
A67390	How shall it be done, but by denying many Gods?
A67390	Is the Divinity of Christ implied in the New Testament?
A67390	Is the Humanity of Christ called God?
A67390	Is the Humanity preferred before Angels?
A67390	No real Unity but acting a Person by imitation?
A67390	Or did the Humanity frame the World?
A67390	Or, why should we set up Two Gods where One will serve, and when the Scripture says, There is but One?
A67390	What was it made for, if not to prevent Polytheism?
A67390	What( says he) was that Commandment made for?
A67390	What?
A67390	Why in our case?
A67390	Why, how is that to be done?
A67390	is the Divinity of Christ implied in the New Testament?
A67388	( as well as those three other Persons be one Man?)
A67388	And shall we then say, of the deep things of God, The thing is impossible, because we can not find it out?
A67388	And why the Second Person, and not the First or Third?
A67388	And, how can he then say, That to Dye is gain?
A67388	As to the Question, How is it Possible?
A67388	As to the Question, Why?
A67388	By what handle can a Spirit Intangible take hold of a Tangible Material Body, and give Motion to it?
A67388	For when there is in the same body, and so near, Semen virile& muliebre, what hinders but there might be a passage for them to mix?
A67388	Now( as he there further argues) If, when he tells us of earthly things, we do not apprehend it, how much more if he tell us of Heavenly things?
A67388	Of what Matter?
A67388	Or, that God can not command the Winds, because we can not?
A67388	The Objection is this: Since the Three Persons can not be Divided; How is it possible, that One of them can Assume Humanity, and not the other?
A67388	With what Tools or Engines?
A67388	and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
A67388	of the deep things of God?
A67388	or, Direct its Motions this way or that way?
A67388	or, How a Pure Spirit could produce Matter where none was?
A67388	or, Stop it when in Motion?
A38076	And now is it not plain to any man, that the Dean, by thus going forward and backward, saying and unsaying, very evidently contradicts himself?
A38076	Are not the Persons in the Trinity three distinct Divine Persons?
A38076	Are not these three Persons three substantial Persons?
A38076	Are there not three Persons in the Godhead?
A38076	But 2dly, Let it be granted, that the Church may alter old phrases; but hath she actually made use of that her Authority in the case before us?
A38076	But can not what is essential to the notion of a person, be numbred and distinguished with the person?
A38076	But to pass this by, and proceed to his questions: Are not three substantial persons, three distinct substances?
A38076	But what Church I beseech you?
A38076	Doth this great critick in languages know whence this word is derived?
A38076	How can this Apology vindicate him, except either he be the Church, or at least be commissioned by her, and invested with her Authority?
A38076	How comes he to be styled the Church?
A38076	Is it not Sabellianism to affirm that there is but one singular and solitary nature in the Trinity?
A38076	Is it not then as plain, that if there be three distinct divine Persons, there must consequenty be three Gods?
A38076	Is not every divine Person, truly and properly God?
A38076	The Church hath tyed us to the use of these words, I pray who hath set us at liberty?
A38076	Well?
A38076	What Authority I pray hath he to order the laying of it aside?
A38076	What must words be used, or laid aside at his discretion?
A38076	When he saith it is one, one and the same, doth he mean one singular, numerical nature?
A38076	or could such a Censure so passed be accused of rashness?
A67417	''T is indeed a piece of Courtship at this day,( and perhaps hath been for some Ages:) But how long hath it been so?
A67417	17.27, 28. Who hath first given to him?
A67417	And do not the Antitrinitarians differ much more?
A67417	And do not the Arians among themselves, and the Socinians amongst themselves, differ more than do the Trinitarians?
A67417	And what hinders but that the same God, distinguished according to these three Considerations, may fitly be said to be Three Persons?
A67417	Behold, the man is become like One of Vs. Is this also Stilo Regio, instead of, The man is become like one of Me?
A67417	Doth not the Arian and the Socinian differ as much from one another, as either of them do from us;( and declare that they so do?)
A67417	Et quisquam credit hanc Unitatem de divina firmitate venientem, sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem, scindi in Ecclesia posse?
A67417	Fo ●, seeing these Three are One, How can the Holy Ghost be at Peace with him who is at Enmity with either the Father or the Son?
A67417	For to which of the Angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?
A67417	For, if these be not Characters of the True God, by what Characters shall the True God be described?
A67417	I am HE; What HE?
A67417	I ask then, of What God?
A67417	Of Christ?
A67417	Of the Creator?
A67417	Of the Holy Ghost?
A67417	Or( if the word Person do not please) Three Somewhats that are but One God?
A67417	Quaero, Cujus Dei?
A67417	Shall we therefore argue, That God the Redeémer is the Onely True God, and beside Him there is no God, therefore not God the Creator?
A67417	Si Spiritus Sancti;[ cum tres Unum sint,] quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Fi ● ii inimicus est?
A67417	The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, Who can know it?
A67417	Therefore, not him who brought Israel out of the North- Country?
A67417	What nation is so great, who hath God so Nigh unto them?)
A67417	What shall I say to them?
A52605	But it may be questioned possibly, why have I wrote against him then, if I had such a Respect for him?
A52605	But what?
A52605	Does he not?
A52605	He argues thus therefore, with himself: What was that Commandment made for?
A52605	I would fain ask the Doctor, Does this Text insinuate that these two Gods, to wit, the Father and the Word, are one?
A52605	Is the Humanity preferred before Angels?
A52605	Is there Three Persons in God?
A52605	No, but you say all ca n''t; And why not?
A52605	Not that I write this, that God doth not harden some neither; but who shall judge who they are; who shall say, just such a Sect?
A52605	Pray Sir, what do you make of God, a variable, changeable, dying thing?
A52605	Right, and did the Doctor ever know a Unitarian, especially an Arrian, deny him that Character?
A52605	What?
A52605	What?
A52605	Why how, says he, is that to be done?
A52605	for is it not to begin with Calumnies?
A52605	is the Divinity of Christ implied in the New Testament?
A52605	may be Dr. Wallis doth not think, that God in Christ was tempted, suffered, or dyed, but only the Man?
A52605	or does it not rather acquaint us, they are two, and separate?
A52605	or, did the Humanity frame the Worlds?
A52605	that is, one of your God''s to dye; and if you can one, why not all?
A52605	why but Three?
A67409	( And what if I had said so too?)
A67409	( whereby he was constrained to relinquish his Errors?)
A67409	And what Vnskilfulness appears in this?
A67409	As little need be said of a many little things, as little to the purpose: As, whether my Third Letter were not rather a Book?
A67409	But was it not so?
A67409	But what Vnfairness was there in all this?
A67409	But what''s all this to the matter in hand?
A67409	But( besides in these and many others, he cavils without a cause) what''s all this to the Business in hand?
A67409	Doth Luther or Calvin any where say, that Father, Son, and Holy- Ghost, are but three Names?
A67409	Nor had he told me, who, and when, and upon what Question, his supposed Anti- Socinian was baffled by his Opponent?
A67409	Nor what shall we call them?
A67409	Or how doth it contradict what I affirm?
A67409	These three — what?
A67409	Well, but did they change all their Opinions?
A67409	Well; but what says he, is the Question?
A67409	What am I then to do?
A67409	Whether Tres or Trinitas be the better Latin- word?
A67409	Whether Vnum( in the Neuter Gender, put absolute without a Substantive) do not usually signifie One Thing?
A67409	Whether it be better English to say, God the Creator, God the Redeemer, and God the Sanctifier ARE, or IS but one God?
A67409	Whether the things which God hath prepared for them that love him, are the Onely deep things of God which we can not comprehend?
A67409	Whether the word Trinitas, be a pure Latin, or a Barbarous Word,( not to be found in Tully, any more than Vnitarian)?
A67409	Whether, what I knew forty years ago, I had been studying and considering forty years( without thinking of ought else all the while)?
A67409	Whether, what in his former Letter, p. 9. were but old- fashioned Notions, be now( in this last) New and Cautious?
A67409	Why unskilfully?
A67409	did they relinquish all their Errors?
A67409	or the Onely secret things which belong to God, while things Revealed belong to us?
A67409	or, how I might come to know it?
A67409	or, that they be three Gods?
A67409	why unfairly?
A42447	And how easie are Villainous Practices derived from an absurd Faith?
A42447	And if there be but One Omnipresent, Infinitely Perfect Being, how can he be truly and fully represented to any Mind under Three different Idea''s?
A42447	And now what dangerous Consequences can possibly attend such a Faith as this?
A42447	And what am I the wiser for all this?
A42447	Are we not obliged to believe there are Joys in Heaven, which it has not enter''d into the Heart of Man to conceive?
A42447	But here I fore- see it may be asked, What do we understand more of the Trinity now than we did before?
A42447	But here it is Objected; How can God and Man be united?
A42447	But if we say, there are Three Infinite Beings, and all the Perfections of each are coincident, what ground can we have for such a Distinction?
A42447	For where''s the Hardship of being required to believe as far as we can believe?
A42447	God is Incomprehensible in his Nature and Perfections, but are we not obliged to believe there is a God who is Incomprehensible?
A42447	If not, what do they signifie?
A42447	Nay, has not God taken a particular care to preserve Men from Idolatry, by forbidding them to Worship him in or by any sensible Representation?
A42447	Were the Heavens, the Temple, the Cherubim or Prophets to be adored?
A42447	What Blasphemies and Contradictions may and have been imposed upon mens belief, under the Venerable Name of Mysteries?
A42447	What addition is there made to my Faith or Knowledge by such a Proposition?
A42447	What becomes of the great Difficulty and Obscurity complained of by others?
A42447	What created Object was ever allowed to intercept the Worship paid to God, or share with him in it?
A42447	What is sufficient for Christians to believe concerning this Point?
A42447	What it is the Scripture requires us to believe in this Matter?
A42447	What new Hypothesis is here advanced to solve all the Difficulties of that Doctrine by?
A01747	And further, see you not in euerie thing a bodie, a spirite and a life, which is the knot betweene them?
A01747	And how is Faith sayd to bee the gift of God?
A01747	And why ought this to seeme strange?
A01747	And why?
A01747	Beleeue you the Scripture?
A01747	But how thē commeth it to passe, that all men haue not Faith?
A01747	But you will say, Is not the Holy Ghost a Beginner vnto any other?
A01747	Can you now confer this Scripture with that place, I haue said ye are Gods, and not be ashamed?
A01747	For is not this world as a booke wherein wee may reade and vnderstand by the created trueths, what is the Trueth which is increated?
A01747	For tell mee without selfe- liking, what sound iudgement doth this argue, to be driuen about with euery wind of doctrine?
A01747	How is that?
A01747	I graunt there is Prioritie among the persons of the Godhead; but of what kinde?
A01747	I will make a comparison vnmeet for the matter of which I speake; for to whom shall wee assimulate the Highest?
A01747	If these things were not so; how thē could the Gentiles which knew not the Scriptures, he without excuse for their ignorance of God?
A01747	Is Iohns authoritie sufficient?
A01747	Now how could he do this, if he knew him not?
A01747	Or rather, see you not how the very bodily composition is both one, and three?
A01747	See you not how the vnderstanding?
A01747	The Iewes vnderstood, that hee herein professed himselfe to be very GOD: and are you his enemie more then they?
A01747	What bringing vp?
A01747	What if there want perfection?
A01747	What shall I cyte vnto you that of the second Pslam?
A01747	You wil say, To what purpose then serue the Scriptures?
A01747	You will againe obiect, that Eternitie hath no beginning nor ending: how then can Christ be both eternall and begun?
A01747	and how againe can he be equall to the Father, whereas hee beeing begotten of the Father, the Father hath a prioritie before him?
A01747	and how is hee said to leade vs into all trueth,& c?
A01747	doth not God require that perfectiō at mans hand wherein he did create him?
A01747	how is he then the Authour of our consolation?
A01747	one body which is vnited of three bodies?
A01747	the Sun- light also, is one in nature, and yet three in euident and cleare distinction?
A25775	* Did the Father beget a Mode and call it his Son?
A25775	* How much better does it fare with Tritheism in England?
A25775	* What?
A25775	And can those then be Sabellians who hold three distinct Subsistences in the Same?
A25775	And now if this be really so, is not our Church, think we, in a blessed Condition?
A25775	And that the 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉, as such, had properly Flesh and Blood?
A25775	And what can Gentilis say against this?
A25775	But what God do you believe in?
A25775	But what''s all this to a distinction of Essence?
A25775	But who ca n''t easily discern, that this pitiful shift is too weak to support his tottering Cause?
A25775	But who can say that he ever heard amongst us, That we devis''d another God Superior to the Father of Christ?
A25775	For Christ speaks exclusively, Why callest thou me good?
A25775	For does not Sabellius hold only one single Subsistence in the Godhead, and no more?
A25775	For there is not an Arranter Piece of Sophistry, than to use Words in a different sence from that, wherein they have usually been received and taken?
A25775	For what good Man can hear with patience such a Rascally Fellow thus sawcily abusing and undermining the Christian Religion?
A25775	How audacious then is the Mind of Man, that dares pry into and endeavour to explain these hidden things of God?
A25775	How then dare we be so bold as to make him distinct in Essence from the Father?
A25775	Is not this, I pray you, an evident sign of a Seducing and Diabolical Spirit?
A25775	Nay, make them two distinct Numerical Essences, and so too as that the one should be propagated by the other?
A25775	So again, when Christ upon the Cross cries out, My God, My God, why hast thou for saken me?
A25775	Tell me who was he that rul''d over him?
A25775	Translated by Robert South?
A25775	What a dismal Aspect, I say, must all this needs have upon our Church and Clergy?
A25775	Whether or no it be proper to the Father to be call''d the One Only God?
A25775	Who amongst us ever taught or affirm''d any such thing?
A25775	Who knows but that you are come to such high Place, Power and Dignity in our Church for such a Time as This?
A25775	Who then was it that sent him?
A25775	Whom did he obey, or whose Law did he fulfill?
A25775	Will he say, that Christ, as God, did suffer?
A25775	With the Father only exclusive of the Son?
A25775	With what God?
A25775	not explained by Self- Consciousness and Mutual Consciousness?
A59831	And being asked again, Why they then used those Expressions of Three Substances?
A59831	And then the Synod examined those who affirmed, That there was but One Substance in the Trinity, What they meant by it?
A59831	But if one infinite Mind is true and perfect God, are not Three infinite Minds Three Gods?
A59831	But supposing their Authority to be Just and Regular, there is another very proper Question, How far their Authority extends?
A59831	But will they hence frame an Universal Rule, That nothing must be said of the Holy Trinity in the Plural Number, considered as Three?
A59831	Does this Doctrine then of a real substantial Trinity, of three infinite Personal Minds, reproach or blaspheme the Deity?
A59831	I beseech you against whom?
A59831	In what sence then they are one Substance?
A59831	Is it any Reproach then to the Ever Blessed Trinity to affirm, that each Person is by himself a distinct infinite Mind?
A59831	Is it false then, that each Person in the Ever- Blessed Trinity is by himself in his own Person a Distinct, Infinite Mind, Spirit, or Substance?
A59831	Is not God the Father an Infinite Mind or Spirit?
A59831	Is not God the Son, the substantial Word and Wisdom of the Father, an Infinite Mind or Spirit?
A59831	Is not an eternal, infinite Person true and perfect God?
A59831	Now what Wickedness does this Doctrine of a real substantial Trinity, a Trinity of Three infinite personal Minds, teach us?
A59831	Or whether by Three Hypostases they meant, as some other Hereticks did, Three Principles, or Three Gods?
A59831	They ask us, Whether an eternal and infinite Mind be not ture and perfect God?
A59831	Whether to the declaring and decreeing Heresy?
A59831	Why may we not say that there are Three Gods as well as that there are Three Persons, or Three Minds?
A59831	against Father, Son, or Holy Ghost?
A59831	and if every eternal Person, as a distinct Person, be true and perfect God, are not Three such distinct Persons Three Gods?
A59831	and is not each of these Divine Persons a distinct infinite Mind?
A59831	and is this Blasphemy?
A59831	does not an infinite Mind signifie all the Perfections of a Deity?
A59831	is a Mode, a Posture, a Somewhat, without any name or notion belonging to it, the Object of Religious Worship?
A59831	is an infinite Mind then a Term of Reproach and Blasphemy?
A59831	or is it Blasphemy to say, what they are?
A59831	or is this to be suffered in a Christian Church?
A59831	or when each of these Divine Persons is a distinct infinite Mind, is it Blasphemy to say, that three Divine Persons are three distinct infinite Minds?
A59831	whether they can distinctly worship, three Names, or Modes, or Somewhats, when there is but one real substantial Subject or Suppositum of them all?
A59822	And what now does he answer to this?
A59822	But can we deny, that the whole Divinity, the fulness of the God- head was incarnate, or dwelt in Christ?
A59822	But do they think that all the Catholick Fathers knew not how to find Three in the Trinity, till they taught them to tell three upon their Fingers?
A59822	But is he so incarnate, as to be truly God- Man in One Person, as the Soul and Body are One Man?
A59822	But is not each Person in the Trinity infinite Mind, Spirit, Substance?
A59822	But is not this, in a true Catholick Sense, the Doctrine of the Realists also, as I observed before?
A59822	But will this Author in good earnest allow, that God was incarnate in Christ, and that Christ was in One Person, both God and Man?
A59822	Can a Being, who was never made, who has no Cause, no Beginning, have any End but it self?
A59822	For, How can the Son be Consubstantial, or of the same Substance with the Father, if he be no Substance at all?
A59822	Is God then only for the Sake of Creatures?
A59822	Nay, do not some Realists venture to call them three Minds, Spirits, Substances?
A59822	Or how can any of these things be affirmed of, or applied to our Saviour, in regard of the Incarnate or inhabiting Logos, or reflex Wisdom?
A59822	Or, Whether he had any immanent Acts of Wisdom or Reason, before he made the World?
A59822	Or, that the Arians owned Father and Son to have the same specifick Nature as Adam and Abel had?
A59822	Then he askt them, Whether he had a natural Will?
A59822	Theophanes askt Macarius and Stephen, Whether Adam had a reasonable Soul?
A59822	Was one God a superfluous, needless Being, before he made the World?
A59822	What is now become of his immanent Act, by which he tells us Original Mind must be Wise?
A59822	What then?
A59822	Why, you''ll say, is not every Person in the Trinity, by himself, in his own Person, true and perfect God?
A59822	and what are such Three, but three Gods, if One infinite Mind and Spirit, be one God?
A59822	or was the World from Eternity as well as God?
A59822	that is, the personal Wisdom of the Father; for who ever disputed, whether immanent Acts were Personal, or no?
A48160	( What?
A48160	( as God forbid I should think he never hath) what is that he supposes injurious to it?
A48160	And indeed is this a new notion?
A48160	And is there any hurt to him in that?
A48160	And what doth this come to less than three Natures?
A48160	And what is it now that he can not possibly understand otherwise?
A48160	And what then?
A48160	And what''s that which he calls a new notion?
A48160	And wherein doth it come short of what is said by the Enquirer?
A48160	And who did ever make a real distinction to be but modal?
A48160	Are similitudes ever wo nt to be alike throughout, to what they are brought to illustrate?
A48160	But hath he in all this fervent bluster a present concern at this time for the Honour of the Divine Being?
A48160	But if there be three what?
A48160	But this supposes some body said the first: And who?
A48160	But wherein doth the Enquirer own it?
A48160	But why then were these three so much discourst of before?
A48160	Doth he mean we are to disbelieve every thing of God whereof we have not a natural Notion?
A48160	For how can such actual sensation be imagin''d to be union?
A48160	For what are three spiritual natures no more the same, than( as he grosly speaks) the Soul and Body are?
A48160	How could he but think of that; To whom do ye liken me?
A48160	If by different Natures he means( as he seems) of a different kind, who thought of such a difference?
A48160	Is God the appropriate Name of a Person?
A48160	Is it strange the Created Universe should not afford us an exact Representation of uncreated Being?
A48160	Is it the words, parts and compounds?
A48160	Is not the water in the streams, the same that was in the Fountain?
A48160	Is this Notion of God pretended to be Natural?
A48160	Then to what purpose is a Divine Revelation?
A48160	Therefore if he do not own the Consequence, then the Defender confesses himself to have invidiously devised it; and what is it?
A48160	What Appetite in him is it, that now seeks what Nature doth not afford?
A48160	What is wanting to make him compleat God, in whom the whole, entire Divinity subsists?
A48160	Who can help so cross an understanding?
A48160	Why were these words read with Eyes refusing their office, to let them into the Reader''s mind?
A48160	and all other conceivable perfections besides?
A48160	and are not the several Attributes expresly spoken of as common to these three?
A48160	as new as the Creation?
A48160	by what consequence is this said, from any thing in the Enquirers Hypothesis?
A48160	may one neither be allow''d to agree with him, nor disagree?
A48160	no more than an intelligent mind, and a piece of Clay?
A48160	or fathom the depths?
A48160	or is it the things supposed to be united in the Divine Being?
A48160	then indeed there will be but one person; but who here says so but himself?
A48160	tho''distinct?)
A53669	14. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire, who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
A53669	And he said, who told thee that thou wast naked?
A53669	And is it not strange, that true and real Sacrifices, should be Types and R presentations of that which was not so?
A53669	And shall any dare to deny but it may be so, in things Heavenly, Divine, and Spiritual?
A53669	And shall we think otherwise of the Law of God?
A53669	And why a new sense should be forged for these words, when they are spoken concerning Christ, who can give a just reason?
A53669	But do not these men see that they have hereby given away their Cause which they contend for?
A53669	But first, I ask what Reason is it that they intend?
A53669	But who was this Word?
A53669	But why so I pray?
A53669	But, Secondly, Where, or with whom, was this Word in the beginning?
A53669	Can any thing be more absonant from Faith and Reason, than this absurd expression?
A53669	D ● they say, that by his death he hare testimony unto, and confirmed the truth which he had taught?
A53669	Do they say that in what he did, and su ● fered, he set us an Example that we should labour after conformity unto?
A53669	Do they say, that he taught the Truth or revealed the whole mind and will of God concerning his Worship and our obedience?
A53669	Doth he subsist only in the form or nature of God?
A53669	For in their Catechism unto this Question, Is the Lord Jesus Christ, purus Homo, a meer man?
A53669	For what is according to this Interpretation the meaning of those words, in the beginning was the Word?
A53669	Fourthly, In this gloss what is the meaning of all things?
A53669	Hast thou O Son, fallen under the Enemies hand in my stead; am I saved by thy wounds; do I live by thy death?
A53669	Hast thou eaten of the Tree whreof I commandeded thee that then shouldst not eat?
A53669	He that eateth it, 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 shall bear his iniquities, How?
A53669	How can three be one, and one be three?
A53669	How then will these pretended Masters of Reason reconcile these things?
A53669	How then?
A53669	How?
A53669	If a City be on fire, whose bucket that brings water to quench it ought to be refused?
A53669	If a man should have enquired of some of them of old, whether Melchizedeck were purus Homo, a meer man?
A53669	Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?
A53669	Morte tuâ vivam?
A53669	O the infamous portraicture this Doctrine draws of the Infinite Goodness; is this your retribution, O injurious Satisfactionists?
A53669	Or how could the truth of any thing more evidently be represented unto their minds?
A53669	Peter said to Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lye to the Holy Ghost?
A53669	Tantane me tenuit vivendi nate voluptas, Vt pro me hostili paterer succedere dextrae Quem genui?
A53669	The summ of what they say in general, is, How can these things be?
A53669	Then said the Jews unto him, thou art not fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
A53669	VVhat is the meaning of were made?
A53669	Well, what is that subject matter?
A53669	What Reason do they intend?
A53669	What is it I pray?
A53669	What is their singular herein, concerning how many things may the same be affirmed?
A53669	What now can be required to secure our faith in this matter?
A53669	What then are they?
A53669	What then is this latent sense that is intended, and is discoverable only by themselves?
A53669	Whither shall I go from thy Spirit?
A53669	converted into flesh, into a Man, so that he who was God ceased so to be, and was turned or changed into flesh, that is a Man?
A53669	for then how shall God judge the world?
A53669	hath he a divine nature also?
A53669	that is, were mended?
A53669	tuane haec genitor per vulnera servor?
A52608	Are they not contradictory Terms, and therefore not to be applied to the self- same Substance in Number?
A52608	But allowing now the way of speaking, used by Mr. Hooker, what a Riddle has he propounded?
A52608	But did the Father beget the Substance of God?
A52608	But do they reckon they have to deal only with Fools?
A52608	But how shall we conceive, that the Substance of God in the first Posture, or in Posture A, begat the same Substance of God( in Number) in Posture B?
A52608	But whither am I carried?
A52608	Can any one beget his own Substance?
A52608	Can the self- same Substance( in Number) be of none, and yet be of the Father; be unbegotten, and begotten too?
A52608	Do they not say, that the self- same Substance that is in the Father, is also in the Son?
A52608	Do they think that Scripture is to be interpreted contrary to it self?
A52608	Doth not the Doctor prevaricate?
A52608	Hath he ascribed to the Divine Essence, Properties, which he calleth Persons, that are not in it?
A52608	How many Rarities hath he boxed up, in a very little compass?
A52608	I might also ask the Cardinal, why he hath so much better Thoughts of Athanasius, than of Moses, and the Prophets?
A52608	I would know, how two other Persons can contribute to make him a perfect God, who without them is Almighty?
A52608	If Mr. Hooker could err about the Trinity; What will the Fanaticks and Trimmers say?
A52608	Is it not a Contradiction, a manifold Contradiction?
A52608	Is it not as much as to say, he was before he was?
A52608	Is it so?
A52608	Or have the three Persons but one only self- same Understanding, Will and Energy in Number, as there is but one self- same Substance in Number?
A52608	Or, that Divine Wisdom has made the Belief of Contradictions necessary to Salvation?
A52608	Shall we say, Reverend Hooker has mistaken, and missed his Sons( who are all the Church of England) into an Error concerning the Trinity?
A52608	Some one may say, but is not John''s Substance unbegotten, in respect of John''s Son James; tho it was begotten by Peter?
A52608	There is but one God, say the Holy Scriptures; where can be the Ambiguity of such usual and plain Words?
A52608	Well, shall we say then, that the three Persons are three distinct Substances; is it not plain Tritheism?
A52608	What can be more unthought or silly, for instance, than this vain Elusion?
A52608	What shall we do here?
A52608	Which( I pray) is more honourable, to own a clear and necessary Truth; or to set one''s self to darken and to obstruct it?
A52608	Why do our Opposers choose to maintain such extravagant Paradoxes, rather than acknowledg so easy and natural a Truth, as the Unity of God?
A52608	Will they not be apt to pretend too, he may have erred in his profound Dissertations and Discourses for the Rites and Discipline of the Church?
A52608	doth he not say these things, only to establish Unitarianism, so much the more strongly?
A52608	or in these, There is one God, and there is none other but He?
A52608	or would he have said, Thou shalt have none other God but ME?
A44670	Against whom doth he write?
A44670	And consider whether by your Notion of a Person you forsake not the generality of them, who have gone, as to this point, under the repute of Orthodox?
A44670	And doth not this civil, or meerly respective Notion of a Person, the other being left, fall in with the Antitrinitarian?
A44670	And is an interpretation false, because the words can possibly be tortur''d unto some other sense?
A44670	And then I further enquire, If it were possible to him to unite two, would it not be as possible to unite three?
A44670	Are we therefore to think Infidelity or Despair do not disagree?
A44670	But I pass to the II d Enquiry: Whether some further distinction may not be admitted as possible?
A44670	But are these different conceptions true or false?
A44670	But if things of so congenerous a Nature be united, will not their distinction be lost in their union?
A44670	But is it therefore to be called irrational?
A44670	But what will be the consequence?
A44670	But you will say, suppose it be possible, to what purpose is all this?
A44670	Do therefore their Contraries agree to him?
A44670	Doth he not know they understand this Oneness in one sense, he, in another?
A44670	For the allowing of three somewhats in the divine nature( and what less could have been said?)
A44670	For the former we are at a certainty: But for the latter how do we know what the Original, Natural State of the Divine Being is, in this respect?
A44670	For tho''it is so generally acknowledged, doth he not know it is not so generally understood in the same sense?
A44670	How do we know but that there may be three in the Godhead that make but one God?
A44670	How remote is it from the supposed Trinity in the Godhead?
A44670	How then are we to conceive of the hypostatical union?
A44670	How will he prove any Copies we rely upon to be false?
A44670	If I had deny''d the simplicity of the Divine Nature, had the inference been just, that therefore I must grant a composition?
A44670	If false, why are they admitted?
A44670	If the first be possible, the next actual, what pretence is there to think the last impossible?
A44670	If therefore it be askt, What do we conceive under the Notion of God, but a necessary, spiritual Being?
A44670	If this were indeed so; doth what was true become false, because such a man hath said it?
A44670	Is it because he is pleased to suspect them?
A44670	Nor do I say that it must, I only say Do we know, or are we sure there is no sort of Plurality?
A44670	Or shall we say we clearly see that is not, which only we do not see?
A44670	That therefore there are three Deities?
A44670	They in such a sense as admits a Trinity, he in a sense that excludes it?
A44670	What Man knoweth the things of a Man, but the Spirit of a Man that is in him?
A44670	What incongruity is there in supposing, in this respect, as well as in many others, somewhat most peculiarly appropriate to the Being of God?
A44670	What will be the consequence?
A44670	Where novv is the coincidency?
A44670	Whether a Trinity in the Godhead be possible or no?
A44670	Why then is an unmade, uncreated union of three Spirits less conceivable as that which is to be presupposed to their mutual consciousness?
A44670	Will any man say two or three spirits united, being of the same nature, will mingle, be confounded, run into one another, and lose their distinction?
A44670	Will it not make us Unitarians only, as they affect to call themselves?
A44670	Will not the Notion of Person it self be much more unexceptionable, when it shall be supposed to have its own individual Nature?
A44670	You will here say further than what?
A44670	and what do we make of that?
A44670	and what would I have further?
A44670	i. e. If it were possible to him to unite a spirit and a body, why is it less possible to him to have united two spirits?
A44670	or what it may contain or comprehend in it, consistently with the Unity thereof; or so, but that it may still be but one Divine Being?
A44670	or what simplicity belongs to it?
A44670	or will it be Tritheism, and inconsistent with the acknowledged inviolable Unity of the Godhead?
A44670	or will we say his Wisdom and his Power are really the same thing?
A44670	shall we not believe it?
A44670	that therefore there are three Gods?
A44670	will it be any thing more contrary to such simplicity of the Divine Nature as is necessarily to be ascribed thereto?
A32801	& Tertul ▪ de Anima Quis revelabit quod Deus texit?
A32801	( saith the Disputer of this world) or one be three?
A32801	10 ▪ Beleevest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me?
A32801	14. v. 10, 11 b Deus est ubique totus in seipso: ● uōmodo ubique si in seipso?
A32801	38. beleeve the works — but to what end?
A32801	5 To which of the Angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee?
A32801	A Son honoureth his Father — if then I be a Father where is mine honour?
A32801	All this have I proved by Wisdom: I said I will be wise, but it was farre from me; That which is farre off and exceeding deep, who can finde it out?
A32801	An etiam Abnegatio Christi quae fit corde in Ep ● cureismum prolapso sit peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum?
A32801	And how come we to be quickned to this Godly life?
A32801	And how is this Spirituall life maintained, but by the Supply of the Spirit of Iesus Christ?
A32801	But I said, how shall I put thee among the Children, and give thee a pleasant Land, a goodly Heritage of the hosts of Nations?
A32801	But we have cause to complaine of them, and Apostates, Idolaters, Atheists, and what not?
A32801	But what shall I gaine by this?
A32801	Can one be distinguished again and again from himself?
A32801	Christ askes them whether they did accuse him of blasphemy, because he said he was the son of God?
A32801	Christus est 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉, credis vel non?
A32801	Cùm in terris nullam poterit reperiri Judicium, de coelo quaerendus est Judex; sed ut quid pulsamus ad coelum, cum habemus hic in Evangelio?
A32801	Dares any mortall man lay claime to these titles and this honour?
A32801	For how shall God put us among his Children, unless every one of us say unto him, my Father, my Father, I do obey thee, and will not depart from thee?
A32801	For to which of the Angels said God at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?
A32801	How can three be one?
A32801	I shall not enter into that sad dispute whether this Personal Property be Absolute or Relative?
A32801	If you ask Where God was before the World was made?
A32801	If you leave out the Divine Essence or Substance out of the definition, how is it a Consubstantial or Coessential Trinunity?
A32801	Is not this a grosse fallacy k, because of the imparity and infinite l inaequality?
A32801	It may be you will reply as Hazael did, Am I a dog that I should be accessary to any grievous or unrighteous Decree?
A32801	Let him consider his own confession[ these three] what are these three?
A32801	May we not safely conclude from hence that the Spirit is a distinct Person, Another Person from the Father and the Son?
A32801	Moreover, if the Father have not a divine and eternal Son how is he a divine and eternal Father?
A32801	No, that he doth abominate: are they three Accidents, no, that is absurd; are they three substances?
A32801	Quid aliud innuere volunt Quatuor cornua altaris aurei in conspectu Dei?
A32801	Quis Poetarum, quis Sophistarum qui non omnino de Prophetarum fonte potaverit?
A32801	Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
A32801	Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo adest ubique invocatus, cum haec hominis natura non sit, sed Dei ut adesse omni loco possit?
A32801	Si ● nus potest emnia, quid opus est pluribus diis?
A32801	The Virgin doubts of the first particular, and enquires how that could be without the knowledge of a man?
A32801	The distinguishing question, which was then put, was the old question, Do you beleeve that Christ is God by nature?
A32801	The second Epistle of Iohn the ninth verse, Who is a lyar but he that denyeth that Iesus is the Christ?
A32801	What can there be more expresse or cleare?
A32801	What is a Godly life?
A32801	What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man, which is in him?
A32801	What shall we say to these things?
A32801	What should Mary say for their consolation?
A32801	Who is a lyer but he who denies that Iesus is the Christ?
A32801	are they three Gods?
A32801	if so, then created or uncreated; not created, for that he saith none will affirme: are they three uncreated substances?
A32801	was it enough to tell them my Lord is alive, and calls you his brethren?
A32801	whether they that dye in Christ rest from their labours?
A40444	242, That it was matter of free choice: And have I not said the same?
A40444	242. you say, That that proves his Pre- existence: And I grant it you: And what, Sir, is not this agreeable to my Hypothesis?
A40444	43, that I am asham''d to see''t: What, Sir, do you think they would have called the greatest Council that ever was, if they had design''d a tricking?
A40444	8. and the Context directs?
A40444	: 1687?]
A40444	And are we not bound to have a Charity for their Errour?
A40444	And if not, how can it be an open and barefac''d Idolatry?
A40444	And is not the other Expression adequate to both Hypothesis alike?
A40444	And pray, Sir, where are the Absurdities and Contradictions of these things?
A40444	And pray, Sir, why is not Hatred a Person in God, as well as Love?
A40444	And what Men said of him?
A40444	And what is it nothing to Christianity, that we have several degrees of Glory as an Encouragement, set in our prospect and search above the Heathen?
A40444	And what, Sir, do these Wiles look as from God?
A40444	And what, Sir, does this look, as if there was a coequality to be represented?
A40444	And what, Sir, is not this Insolence?
A40444	And what, Sir, was it out of Charity that they forbore to call the Trinitarians Hereticks?
A40444	And what?
A40444	And who shall deny you this Honour?
A40444	But methinks I hear you object to me, What Faith is necessary then, if this be not?
A40444	But what benefit will these Texts do you?
A40444	But what need I repeat more of these proofs?
A40444	But you say, This is a Mystery: And pray who has authoris''d it for one?
A40444	But you''ll say, here is some colour for the Trinity: And what, is there not then as much sor Transubstantiation?
A40444	Can any thing under infinite Wisdom Rule the World?
A40444	Can here be any pretence then that the Godhead suffer''d?
A40444	Does Baptism shew Worship?
A40444	Does not the Sun do the same thing in the Sensible, and Vegetable World?
A40444	Give me leave to advise you a little, Sir, if you are resolv''d to follow Tradition: Be not partial in it: Why should you act by halves?
A40444	If so, why may not my Construction of it, agreeable to Scripture- Interpretation, be as good as yours?
A40444	Is it that you think to storm and brave us out of our Cause; or that you are sure you only are in the right?
A40444	Is not the whole Foundation of your Argument rotten?
A40444	Is this clear like a heavenly Truth?
A40444	No, we''ll turn the havock of the first Commandment justly, in Contradictions upon you; we need not ask with Nicodemus, How can these things be?
A40444	Not that we beg it neither: But is it generous, first to fetter a Man, and then challenge him?
A40444	Or are you resolv''d to trust more to the Council of Nice, because not so many?
A40444	Or were the Copy of it lost, who would be able exactly to hammer it out?
A40444	Or what, Sir, is your Eye evil, because God is good?
A40444	Or would you have him damn them to support your Hypothesis?
A40444	Page 153, you say, We ought not to force the Scriptures to preconceiv''d Notions: But what?
A40444	Pray who can agree in this Mystery?
A40444	Pray, Sir, what is it you mean by these Triumphs?
A40444	That Faith which you say requires both Forehead, and Forgery to deny it, page 44, when you should say to maintain it?
A40444	That at the Name of Jesus, every knee shall bow — and that every tongue shall confess,( But what?)
A40444	That the son of man hath power on earth, to forgive sins: But what then?
A40444	What looks more impertinent and absurd?
A40444	What shall I say?
A40444	What shall a meer Man be exalted above Angels?
A40444	What wo nt you make us no allowances in your Thoughts?
A40444	What, a Coequal?
A40444	Would you have God a Devil, create Men meerly for Damnation?
A40444	Yes surely, if he were first above them, and laid aside his Being only for a time, and in obedience to his God: And what say you?
A40444	Yes surely; But if they are, why do they stille us, and our Books, is it not that they fear our Truths?
A40444	You had as good say, she has no concern in Language; And pray in what has she more?
A40444	is not this Mystery such?
A40444	or that if you had the worst Cause, you could defend it well?
A40444	s.n.,[ London?
A59791	1st, I desire to know, whether he thinks the Doctrine of the Trinity to be defensible or not?
A59791	3dly, How are Atheists concerned in the Disputes of the Trinity?
A59791	And is it not better that such Pamphlets should be in an hundred hands with an Answer, than in five hands without one?
A59791	And now can any Man tell, what Opinion this Melancholy Stander- by has of the Doctrines of the Trinity, and Incarnation?
A59791	And what is the hurt of this?
A59791	And when the Faith is publickly opposed and scorned in Printed Libels, ought it not to be as publickly defended?
A59791	And whether Christ and his Apostles intended to teach any more?
A59791	But I would desire this Author to tell me, whether we must believe Fundamentals with, or without Reason?
A59791	But did his Socinian Friends, who were such busie Factors for the Cause, tell him so?
A59791	But if these Dissentions be so great a blemish to the Reformation, whose Fault is it?
A59791	But is there no danger that the Church may be flung out of possession, and lose the Faith, if she do n''t defend it?
A59791	But it will be said, What shall we do?
A59791	But let them be never so good Men, as some of the Heathen Philosophers were, must we therefore tamely suffer them to pervert the Faith?
A59791	But pray, why should we not write against the Socinians?
A59791	But what is that?
A59791	But when this fit time is come( for I know not what he means by a fit place) what shall we do then?
A59791	But why is it so unseasonable in this Juncture?
A59791	Can we certainly learn from Scripture, Whether Christ be a God Incarnate, or a mere Man?
A59791	Did they print them, that no body might read them?
A59791	Do we then deny, that there are Three Persons and One God?
A59791	Does he think that they are no Christians, and ought not to be concerned for common Christianity?
A59791	For must we believe the Words or the Sense of Scripture?
A59791	However, were it so; is there no regard to be had to Hereticks themselves?
A59791	I would ask any man who talks at this rate about a Latitude of Faith, Whether there be any more than One True Christian Faith?
A59791	If ever it will be so, why is it not so now?
A59791	If it be not defensible, why does he believe it?
A59791	If this never will be Christian and Wholesome, what else is to be done to Hereticks in fit time and place, unless he intends to Physick''em?
A59791	If we can not, Why should we believe either?
A59791	Is not every Divine Person who is God, a Mind, and an Eternal Mind?
A59791	Is not the Eternal Spirit, which searcheth the deep things of God, as the Spirit of a Man knoweth the things of a Man, a Mind?
A59791	Is not the substantial Word and Wisdom of God a Mind?
A59791	Is not this their proper Work and Business?
A59791	Is this an Age to resolve our Faith into Church Authority?
A59791	Must we be afraid of defending the Faith of the Trinity, lest Atheists should mock at it, who already mock at the Being of a God?
A59791	Must we renounce Christianity, to keep out Popery?
A59791	Must we then turn all Socinians, to preserve the Reformation?
A59791	No, The Adversaries to the received Doctrine( Why not to the true Faith?)
A59791	No, our business is to prove it, and explain and vindicate it?
A59791	Or does he think, that the Defences made by Trinitarians expose the Faith more than the Objections of Socinians?
A59791	Or has Christ and his Apostles left it at liberty to believe what we like, and to let the rest alone?
A59791	Or how are we concerned to avoid scandalizing Atheists, who believe that there is no God at all?
A59791	Or whether they did not intend, That all Christians should be obliged to believe this One Faith?
A59791	Or would he himself believe such absurd Doctrines as they represent the Trinity in Unity to be, merely upon Church Authority?
A59791	Ought not they to satisfie themselves, that there is no force in the Objections, which are made against the Faith?
A59791	Pray what hurt have they done?
A59791	Renounce the Faith of the Trinity, for the sake of Peace?
A59791	Theirs who dissent from the Truth, or theirs who defend it?
A59791	To believe that the Eternal Word was made Flesh; or that Christ was no more than a Man, who had no being before he was born of the Virgin Mary?
A59791	Was there ever such a Reason thought of as this?
A59791	Well: What shall we do then?
A59791	Were they not dispersed in every Corner, and boasted of in every Coffee- house, before any Answer appeared?
A59791	What Faith is that which can subsist without a Foundation?
A59791	What Faith must we contend for, if not for Fundamentals?
A59791	What else can we dispute for, when Foundations are overturned?
A59791	What else is worth disputing?
A59791	What is the meaning of that Apostolical Precept, To contend earnestly for the Faith?
A59791	What purer Reformers were these?
A59791	What shall Christians do then, when Atheists, Infidels, and Hereticks, strike at the very Foundations of their Faith?
A59791	What shall we have left of Christianity, if we must either cast away, or not defend every thing, which Atheists will mock at?
A59791	What?
A59791	When Hereticks dispute against the Faith, must we be afraid of disputing for it, for fear of making a Controversie of Fundamentals?
A59791	Whether we must take Fundamentals for granted, and receive them with an implicite Faith, or know for what Reason we believe them?
A59791	Why does he let St. Austin escape, from whom the Master of the Sentences borrowed most of his Distinctions and Subtilties?
A59791	Why does he not accuse the Ancient Fathers and Councils, from whom the Schoolmen learnt these Terms?
A59791	Will he then give us leave to write and dispute against such Hereticks?
A59791	Will it ever be most Christian and most Wholesome, to dispute for the Faith against Heresie?
A59791	Will the World think that we are all of a mind, because there is disputing only on one side?
A59791	With respect to the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation?
A59791	how long must we be silent?
A41434	And is there such a difference of men between themselves, comparing one with another?
A41434	And to what can the regeneration or new birth of man, be better resembled or compared, then to the creation?
A41434	Born in a Stable?
A41434	Born in a Stable?
A41434	Born in a Stable?
A41434	But here if, I shall further demand what is an infinite?
A41434	But how should the whole Deity be in every Person?
A41434	But if this Deity be wholly imparted, yet then how should it still remain whole and entire?
A41434	But supposing the three Persons in one Deity, why should the Word be made flesh, the Father and the Spirit excluded?
A41434	Canst thou conceive how all the contrary Elements should be combined in one compound subject?
A41434	Do we not here see how all the three Persons did concur as in one nature, so in the same outward act of Creation?
A41434	Do ye think that what the Church shall determin in this and other mysteries, that it proceeds from the wit and invention of man?
A41434	E: G: If I should aske, whether every thing should be eternall, or that there should be but only one eternall ● …?
A41434	Here we have an Understanding and a Word, but can this Understanding subsist without a Will?
A41434	How long, how long, O Lord, wilt thou suffer thy Church to be thus afflicted?
A41434	If then man be like unto God, why may not he reflect upon God?
A41434	Or if you take the Elixir of bodies, have not the Chymists found out that all bodies consist of Sal, Sulphur, Mercury?
A41434	Quae utilitas in sanguine nostro dum descendimus in aeternam corruptionem?
A41434	Secondly, we confess Gods omnipotency; but how shall this appear, unless there should be some infinite Creature?
A41434	See you not God in all his works, and yet the works still continuing and subsisting in their own kinde?
A41434	That God should put man to a tryall, we must not call him to an account, how shall the Vessell say to the Potter, Why mad''st thou me thus?
A41434	The best of them the high Priests, the Scribes, and the Levites sent to John Baptist to know, whether he were that expected Messias or not?
A41434	Then what is the wit and understanding of man, but meer foolishness, in respect of Gods wisdome?
A41434	Think you that God would not reserve some mystery for his Son to reveal, more then ever was known to the Prophets?
A41434	Thus how many things are we bound to believe, whereof we can not understand the manner and means?
A41434	Thus in all naturall works God useth meanes, and why not in supernaturals?
A41434	Usquequo Domine irasceris?
A41434	Usquequo Domine?
A41434	Usquequo?
A41434	We are not to demand, why sooner or later he took not our flesh?
A41434	What charity did we shew to our Tenants, in accepting such small Fines?
A41434	When the Priests and Levits sent unto him, to know whether he were the Messias?
A41434	Why should God reveal himself to the later Prophets, more then he did to Moses?
A41434	Why should God speak of himself after the manner and fashion of men?
A41434	accendetur velut ignis furor tuus?
A41434	and if such be the effects of our understanding and our love, then what may we conceive of the understanding and love of God?
A41434	and these necessarily, and inseparably knit and united together?
A41434	and what greater then the Trinity, which neither men nor Angels can comprehend, and both men and Angels must adore?
A41434	do not all qualities admit of three degrees of Comparison?
A41434	do you ascribe no more to the cloven tongues, that fell upon the Apostles, whereby they were replenished with Gods Spirit?
A41434	if we have it not of our own, where shall we borrow it?
A41434	is it not true in all Homogeneall bodies?
A41434	is not the most perfect number the number of Three?
A41434	is there not an Eye- bright which serves in stead of Spectacles to clear the sight?
A41434	or by his carnall uncleanness, giving way to his appetite, and gluttony, he should fall down to the sensuality of Beasts?
A41434	or whether man subsisting of flesh, and spirit, which of these should be predominant?
A41434	or why should God by Abraham institute Circumcision, which was unknown unto Noah?
A41434	or why should Moses institute Sacrifices, and such a number of Ceremonies, which were never discovered to Abraham?
A41434	quoties ludibria experti cogebamur fugere ante faciem inimici,& in perpetuo pavore versari?
A41434	shall the body and the flesh be excluded?
A41434	then why may not other fruits and plants, refresh the understanding, and by generating good spirits inlighten it and quicken the apprehension?
A41434	what is the length of mans age, but less then a minute, in respect of Gods eternity?
A41434	what is the wealth of man, but beggery, in respect of Gods treasures?
A41434	where is the injury, when the party offended shall satisfie?
A41434	whether they were dumbe, or spake a language?
A41434	who will be bound for us, or become our surety?
A59810	And how does this change the Soul''s manner of subsisting, any more than the Body changes its manner of subsisting, when it is naked and cloathed?
A59810	And if the Soul be more perfect in a State of Separation, is not this a more perfect manner of Subsistence?
A59810	And is not an infinite and eternal Mind a Person?
A59810	And is not the Perfection of Nature, a natural Perfection?
A59810	And is not this so?
A59810	And what does he mean by the same Person, which the Man himself was, while living?
A59810	Are not all these Accounts, much more chargeable with Tritheism or Sabellianism?
A59810	Are they not English?
A59810	But are not Three infinite intelligent Persons, as much Three absolute, simple Beings and Essences, as Three Minds?
A59810	But does the Dean any where deny, That the Man, as consisting of Soul and Body, is a Humane Person?
A59810	But does the Dean pretend, That his Explication leaves nothing Mysterious in the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity?
A59810	But does this profound Philosopher indeed think, that the Body either sins or suffers?
A59810	But if a Mind were not a Substance, what could it be else?
A59810	But is not a Humane Body part of the Person to whom it belongs?
A59810	But is not the Perfection of our Graces, the Perfection of Humane Nature?
A59810	But suppose Three Persons were Three distinct Substances, inseparably united in One: What then?
A59810	But the Soul by its original Designation is related to the Body; What?
A59810	But what are Three Relatives?
A59810	But what is this Compound which the Soul is essentially related to?
A59810	But what is this Homoousion, or Sameness of Nature?
A59810	Can there be a Trinity in Unity, unless there be a real and substantial Trinity?
A59810	Can they be One before they are Mutually- conscious, even in the order of conceiving it?
A59810	Can they be One before they are in one another?
A59810	Do they signifie nothing?
A59810	Does he then mean, that it is essential to the Soul to live in an earthly Body?
A59810	Does the Father will any thing?
A59810	For does the Man and his Person die?
A59810	For if a Natural Self- conscious Sensation makes a Spirit One with it self, why should not a natural Mutual- conscious Sensation unite Three into One?
A59810	How is that?
A59810	Is it the same thing to be a part of the whole, and to be an Ingredient in a Compound?
A59810	Is the Father his Paternity, the Son his Filiation, and the Holy Ghost his Procession?
A59810	Is the Soul and Body mixed and blended together to make a Man?
A59810	Is there no difference between being a reasonable Creature, and being Peter or Iohn?
A59810	Is this Sameness of Nature then one single or singular Nature, which has but one single Subsistence?
A59810	Nothing, which we can not comprehend?
A59810	Now I desire to know by what Name you would call such a living Image?
A59810	Or ca n''t he understand them?
A59810	Or if he will call this a Difference, as if to differ in number and in Substance or Nature were the same thing?
A59810	Or is there any other mutual In- being of Minds, but Mutual- consciousness?
A59810	Pray what hurt have these seemingly innocent Words done?
A59810	Since then here is no Innovation made in the Faith, nor any alteration of the least term in it, what is the Fault?
A59810	That as a natural Self- consciousness makes One natural Person, so natural Mutual- consciousness should make a naral Trinity in Unity?
A59810	That it is odd and unnatural, that the Soul should live in the Body and out of the Body, and then return into the Body again?
A59810	That it is the Person that acts is certain; but where did he learn, That Personality is the Principle of all Action?
A59810	That they must be One, before they can know themselves to be One?
A59810	That, as the Ancients used to speak, this is no longer a wonderful distinction, and a wonderful Union?
A59810	To be One?
A59810	To be so?
A59810	Well, but the Soul has a natural Aptitude to live in a Body; and so it has to live out of the Body; and what then?
A59810	What does he mean by the Soul''s being an Ingredient in a Compound?
A59810	What does he mean by this?
A59810	What is that to the purpose?
A59810	What is the Divine Essence and Substance, but an infinite and eternal Mind?
A59810	What then?
A59810	What will he make of God at last, when the Divine Essence is an Attribute, and a Divine Person a meer Mode?
A59810	Whether Iohn would not as much feel himself to be Iohn, and Peter to be Peter as ever they did?
A59810	Whether Three Persons who feel themselves to be themselves, and not to be each other, are not Three really distinct Persons?
A59810	Why so?
A59810	Will it not hereby be much more apprehensible, how One of the Persons( as the common way of speaking is) should be Incarnate, and not the other Two?
A59810	Will not the Notion of Person it self be much more unexceptionable, when it shall be supposed to have its own individual Nature?
A59810	Will the Animadverter then venture to attribute any Personality to the Body, as he must do, if he makes it part of the Personality?
A59810	a Distinction without Separation, and an Unity without Singularity, and without Confusion?
A59810	and where is this Man that the Soul is essentially related to?
A59810	are not the Sun, its Light and Splendor, as much Three, but not so much One, as Three Conscious Minds?
A59810	not the Body I hope, for the Body is no more the Compound, than the Soul: Is it then the Man?
A59810	or who calls this the incompleat and the compleat State of the Soul?
A59810	or, when united to a Body, affirm, that the Soul is the whole Person?
A59810	so that it can not live without it, and never should live without it?
A59810	the Divine Nature repeated in its Image without multiplication?
A59810	— Will it be Tritheism and inconsistent with the acknowledged invioluble Unity of the Godhead?
A59810	† Deinde quis audeat dicere patrem non intelligere per semetipsum, sed per filium?
A62586	10 How it can be proved that God hath Revealed it?
A62586	2 What is Faith or Belief in General?
A62586	5 Why we believe the Doctrine of the Trinity?
A62586	A seasonable vindication of the B. Trinity being an answer to this question, why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity?
A62586	And how can there be Three peculiar Substances, and yet but One entire and indivisible Substance?
A62586	And if there are Three Persons which have the Divine Nature attributed to them; what must we do in this Case?
A62586	And if these Three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are Three Gods, is it not a Contradiction to say, there is but One God?
A62586	And is it not equally absurd to Declare, That One Man is these Three Men?
A62586	And must I renounce the Trinity, because I reject Transubstantiation?
A62586	And then, say they, are not these Two Doctrines loaded with the like Absurdities and Contradictions?
A62586	And, What Doctrines concerning it are proposed to our Belief?
A62586	Are not Peter, James, and John, Three distinct Humane Persons?
A62586	Are not Peter, James, and John, Three distinct different Men?
A62586	Are not here Three Gods?
A62586	Are not the Divine Persons Infinite, as well as the Divine Nature?
A62586	Are not the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost( according to the Athanasian Creed) Three distinct different Divine Persons?
A62586	Are there no Mysteries in Religion?
A62586	Are they not Three Almighties?
A62586	Are they not Three Gods?
A62586	As to the First; Is not the Trinity as Incomprehensible as Transubstantiation, and as such equally to be rejected?
A62586	Being an Answer to this Question, Why do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity?
A62586	Being an Answer to this Question, Why do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity?
A62586	But are there not several other kinds of Assent, besides Faith, by which the Soul doth receive and embrace whatsoever appeareth to be true?
A62586	But can these Men of Sense and Reason think, that the Point in Controversy ever was, Whether in Numbers, One could be Three, or Three One?
A62586	But how can these Unitarians pretend, that the Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to Reason?
A62586	But in what manner doth his Lordship propose to Defend it?
A62586	But is it not trifling to prove a Doctrine by Scripture, which( as the Socinians pretend) is contrary to Reason?
A62586	But is there nothing further Objected against the Doctrine of the B. Trinity, wherein I may be instructed by you?
A62586	But the Question is; Whether that Substance must be divided, or not?
A62586	But what of all this?
A62586	But what saith St. Augustin to this?
A62586	But what then?
A62586	But what''s this to the purpose?
A62586	But when you have reckon''d them, what is it you have been counting?
A62586	But wherein lies this Impossibility?
A62586	But who affirms, There are Three Gods?
A62586	Can One whole entire indivisible Substance be actually divided into Three Substances?
A62586	Do they suppose the Divine Nature capable of such Division and Separation by Individuals, as Human Nature is?
A62586	Do they think there is no Difference between an infinitely perfect Being, and such finite limited Creatures as Individuals among Men are?
A62586	Do you believe Transubstantiation?
A62586	Do you think me such a Fool, that I can not count, One, Two, and Three?
A62586	Filium quem dicitis, Deum dicitis?
A62586	First; Let us examine, whether there be equal Reason for the Belief of these Two Doctrines?
A62586	For is not this great skill in these Matters, to make such a Parallel between three Persons in the Godhead, and Peter, James and John?
A62586	For what reason?
A62586	Had he no more skill in Arithmetick, than to say, there are Three, and yet but One?
A62586	Have you nothing further to say in this matter?
A62586	How can any Man of Sense be satisfied with such kind of Arguments as these?
A62586	How do you prove there is not?
A62586	How then can you pretend to prove a Trinity of Persons from the Scriptures?
A62586	How then do you prove that God hath Revealed it?
A62586	How then is this Assent which we call Faith, specified and distinguished from those other kinds of Assent?
A62586	How, and in what manner have they attempted to prove it?
A62586	However,( may these Unitarians reply) Have you not found it in the Athanasian Creed?
A62586	Is it not a Contradiction to affirm, That Peter, James and John, being Three Men, are but One Man?
A62586	Is it not a Contradiction to say, That Peter is James, or that James and John are Peter?
A62586	Is it then your Opinion, that this Hypothesis, of Three distinct Substances in the Trinity, can scarce be Defended?
A62586	Is this Explication of the Trinity, by Three distinct Infinite Minds and Substances, Orthodox, or not?
A62586	Must we cast off the Unity of the Divine Essence?
A62586	Must we reject those Scriptures which attribute Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost, as well as to the Father?
A62586	Non tres Omnipotentes?
A62586	Now what Reply hath his Lordship made to this?
A62586	Now who should not scruple an Opinion perfectly parallel with Transubstantiation, and equally fruitful in Incongruities and Contradictions?
A62586	Or how the Parts of Matter hold together?
A62586	P. 1 What is meant by this Word Trinity, and what Doctrines concerning it are proposed to our Belief?
A62586	Q. Doth not the Athanasian Creed?
A62586	Q. Pray let me hear it?
A62586	Quid sunt isti Tres?
A62586	Spiritum Sanctum quem dicitis, Deum dicitis?
A62586	St. Augustin mentions it as such when he saith; The Infidels sometimes ask us, What do you call the Father?
A62586	WHY do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity?
A62586	Well then, if the Trinity implies no less Contradiction than Transubstantiation; why ca n''t we say, that it can not be contained in Scripture?
A62586	What Answer therefore can you return to this?
A62586	What Grounds have they for such a Charge as this, of Contradiction and Impossibility?
A62586	What are these Three?
A62586	What do you mean by this word Trinity?
A62586	What is Faith, or Belief in General?
A62586	What is it to be Credible?
A62586	What is it?
A62586	What is meant by this word Assent?
A62586	What is the Formal Object of Faith?
A62586	What is the Material Object of Faith?
A62586	What is this Object of Faith?
A62586	What the Holy Ghost?
A62586	What the Son?
A62586	What then is that kind of Assent, which is called Faith?
A62586	Where hath God told us, That there are Three distinct Persons, in the same undivided Divine Essence and Nature?
A62586	Who doubts it?
A62586	Who is he that comprehends either the Structure, or the Reason of the Powers of Seminal Forms or Seeds?
A62586	Who revived this old Objection, and how came it now to be brought again upon the Stage?
A62586	Why do you repeat the word Credible, and say Credible as Credible?
A62586	Why then are new Explications started, and Disputes raised and carried on so warmly about them?
A62586	Will men never learn to distinguish between Numbers and the Nature of Things?
A62586	Will you not allow me to believe the Trinity, unless I will believe Transubstantiation?
A62586	Will you please to explain this more fully, that I may better understand it?
A62586	non tres Dii?
A40088	3. Who are they that determine any Notion to be true, while they can not Conceive it to be so?
A40088	7,& c. Canst thou by Searching find out God?
A40088	And He that formed the Eye shall not he see?
A40088	And I Answer, To what purpose should a Power( or Authority) be longer retained, than while there is any occasion for the Exercise thereof?
A40088	And are not all the Glorious Angels Commanded by the Father to Worship His Son?
A40088	And can this Consist with your having Asserted, that''t is a Contradiction to say, that there can be more than One Infinite Being?
A40088	And he saith, that this Proposition is self- evident; as who sees not that so it is?
A40088	And if he be not So daring, with what face could he object against the possibility of a Necessary Emanation from God, because we have no Idea thereof?
A40088	And now comes a Third Question, Does the Idea of an infinitely Perfect Being, Evidently imply the Necessary Emanation of another Being?
A40088	And the Word was made Flesh,& c. Do not these words at least seem to speak the same thing?
A40088	And what think you of those words which begin St Johns Gospel?
A40088	And when I have asked, What is a mere Imaginary thing?
A40088	And whereas he saith, It is not Plainly revealed whether the H. Ghost be a Person or no?
A40088	Are the Sun and Light the self- same thing?
A40088	As to be able to Comprehend Gods Nature and Glorious Attributes?
A40088	But I am so Impertinent as to ask again, Why they ought not?
A40088	But I ask him, how Self- Existence can be Separated from those Powers?
A40088	But can I need to mind him, that our Hypothesis will not bear a Separation between the Divine Persons, and only asserts a Distinction betwen them?
A40088	But how does he Endeavour to prevent my troubling his Questions, with Confused Empty Jargon?
A40088	But how does he prove this?
A40088	But how is this Proposition Point- blank Contrary to my foregoing ones?
A40088	But how may the Learned Socrates shame the Self- conceited Dogmatizers?
A40088	But how will he allay the Fury I have Expressed in those words, or rather in that one word?
A40088	But is there no difference betwixt Union and Identity or self samenefs?
A40088	But then I ask what is Space?
A40088	But then say I, will you pretend, Sir, to have any the least Idea, How the Divine Substance can do this?
A40088	But what if I grant him, that that Light which was Created before the Sun, the Sun was not the cause of?
A40088	But what if I say That this is as much needs to be proved, as that which it is brought to prove?
A40088	But what tho''the Trinitarians differ in some Particulars, in their Explication of the Trinity, so long as they agree in the main Substance?
A40088	But why must I be such a Devillish Persecutor merely for one word?
A40088	But why so I beseech him?
A40088	But( on second thoughts) I will undertake to Answer it, when he shall be pleased to Answer me this, How did your self come into Being?
A40088	But, Sir, did you ever meet with such Triflng?
A40088	But, Sir, will this Answer do?
A40088	Can a Being that depends on God, be properly said to be Essentially that God, on whom it depends?
A40088	Can our Author in his Cool thoughts imagine it is?
A40088	Can the Divine Nature be Communicated to a Being, when less than all Perfections are Communicated to it?
A40088	Canst thou find out The Almighty to Perfection?
A40088	Cry you, Who gave you leave thus to ask me Questions, and then to answer them as you list for me?
A40088	Deeper than Hell, what Canst thou know?
A40088	Does it follow thence, that the Sun is the cause of no Light?
A40088	Doth not this kind of Talk Suppose, that he takes the three Divine Persons( if he thinks two of them are any thing) to be Corporeal Substances?
A40088	Doth the Divine Nature Comprehend all Perfections; or can it want one or two of the Chiefest, and be still the same Divine Nature?
A40088	For you may as well ask, why God can not do a Contradiction?
A40088	For, First, Who hath so hard, or so large a Head, as to find only the Ways of God incomprehensible to him?
A40088	He asks, What greater Absurdity there can be, than that Beings which have Infinite Unlimited Perfections, should want some Perfections?
A40088	He is Perfectly Amazed at my distinguishing betwixt Intelligible and Comprehensible: I ask Why?
A40088	He that Planted the Ear shall He not hear?
A40088	How comes Boldness all o th''suddain to be such a Crime with this Gentleman?
A40088	How comes that Proposition by such a Remarque as this?
A40088	How the Father can be greater than the Son and H. Spirit, and be the only Good, when they have the same Unlimited Power and Goodness?
A40088	How well was this Flurt bestowed on me, since he knew what a Veneration I Exprest for those Divines, in my last Proposition?
A40088	Is God Almighty bound to give us Ideas of the way and manner how any thing can be Produced by him?
A40088	Is not also the individual Nature of Every living Creature indivisible?
A40088	Is there not a real distinction between our Souls and Bodys, tho''United so closely as that he can not conceive how closely, nor any Man else?
A40088	It is as High as Heaven, what Canst thou do?
A40088	It may be replyed to this Man, Who is he that multiplyeth words without knowledge?
A40088	Now what faith your Friend to this?
A40088	Or how what we know does Exist is Produced?
A40088	Or of Every thing that He hath Produced?
A40088	Or that He is in His own nature Indifferent to every thing?
A40088	Or to give us Ideas of Every thing that he can Produce?
A40088	Or( to speak a little Learnedly) What is the Ratio formalis of Space?
A40088	Or, What is Substance Considered abstractedly from all Accidents?
A40088	Or, What is the Modus how any thing comes to be what it is, or to be at all?
A40088	Proposition?
A40088	Put up again thy Sword,& c. Thinkest thou that I can not now Pray unto my Father, and He shall presently give me more than Twelve Legions of Angels?
A40088	Secondly, How can he say that Jesus Christ desired not Divine Honours to be paid to Him?
A40088	Section?
A40088	Then demand I, What kind of thing is Emptiness?
A40088	Was God Conscious to the Emanation?
A40088	Was He sensible of the Necessity?
A40088	Well, suppose this, is it impossible for a thing to be, of which we sorry Mortals have no Idea?
A40088	Well, what means he by the very Spirit of the Church?
A40088	Why may not one Infinite, as well as one Finite, proceed from another?
A40088	and if it can not, What does this saying Signifie?
A40088	can not this[ Intolerable] bear a more merciful interpretation?
A40088	is it so indeed?
A71108	( which is the only Place he can mean) I expresly say, Relatives can not exist but at the same time?
A71108	53. where he says to Peter, Thinkest thou that I can not now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve Legions of Angels?
A71108	56. of his third Defence, defines Person by Substance?
A71108	62. having necessary Existence, be said more to depend on the Father for their continuance in Being, than the Father on them?
A71108	And did ever any but our Author join necessary Existence and Dependence together?
A71108	And does not the Light of Nature demonstrate, that one God is but one eternal necessary Being?
A71108	And for reply says, I appeal to that little Sense he has left himself, whether Power alone be God exclusively of Wisdom and Goodness?
A71108	And how did I compel him to treat me( as he suspects he has done) with too much Freedom?
A71108	And if the more excellent Nature of the Father be not another sort of Nature than the less excellent Nature of the Son, who can help it?
A71108	And is this all he knows of the Manner how they are one?
A71108	And what Account has he given of the Manner?
A71108	And what is the Emanation of the Rays, which he so much insists on, but their separation from the Body of the Sun?
A71108	And why might not God cause a thing to be voluntarily as well as necessarily from Eternity, since in both Cases Being is equally bestow''d?
A71108	But can there be a real and not a real distinction between them?
A71108	But do Clothes and Exercise by causing Heat, Produce a Collection of such Particles?
A71108	But how can they that were, as he says, boundless and infinite from Eternity, be capable of any farther Production?
A71108	But is not this disowning and owning three inadequate Gods?
A71108	But supposing him somewhere, pray to what purpose?
A71108	But the Defender to prove his assertion asks, How can God be in those Spaces fill''d with Body?
A71108	But what is kindling, but separating the Parts of any thing one from another, by a violent rapid Motion?
A71108	But where is the Difference between Infinite and his own term unlimited?
A71108	Can one and the same God be said to concur with himself?
A71108	Can two Suns( which is a more proper Simily for equal Natures, than the Sun and the Rays) emane from one Sun?
A71108	Does not the one signify without Bounds, as the other without End?
A71108	Does the Divine Nature comprehend all Perfections, or can it want one or two of the chiefest, and be still the same Divine Nature?
A71108	He saith he collected the Substance of it: I believe what he thought the Substance; but how shall the Reader judg of that?
A71108	He that has given a Generative Power to the meanest of Creatures, shall he not have the same Power himself?
A71108	He that hath planted the Ear, shall he not hear?
A71108	How can we form Propositions of Things out of the reach of our Knowledg?
A71108	How could an Unitarian in more direct Terms deny a Trinity?
A71108	How may the Learned Socrates shame the self- conceited Dogmatizers?
A71108	How much rather would I be modest Socrates, than a Christian who so leans to his own or his Party''s Understanding?
A71108	If I studied to nick him with his own Raillery on me, here I might ask, Who told him so?
A71108	If so, would it not then be a Mockery to pray to his Father for that which he had in his own Power before he pray''d for''t?
A71108	If the Substance of the Father be every where, How can the Substance of the Son be every where too, at the same time, and after the same manner?
A71108	If they are not, is it not possible to join other Idea''s to them, which are manifestly inconsistent with them?
A71108	If they are, why does he use such words?
A71108	Is God bound to give us Idea''s, of what he can or has produc''d?
A71108	Is it impossible for a thing to be of which we sorry Mortals have no Idea?
A71108	Is it in another World?
A71108	Is it not directly agaisnt the Honour of the Father, who is God in the highest Sense, to suppose him but a concurring God?
A71108	Is it not first asserting that one has it, then denying it by saying another has it?
A71108	My 3d Question, Can a Being that depends on God, be properly said to be essentially that God on whom it depends?
A71108	Now if Necessity of Existence be essential but to One, I pray, Sir, what will become of his Lordship''s necessary Emanations?
A71108	Or can that which has a Beginning be from Eternity, which necessarily supposeth no Beginning?
A71108	Or how could it be possible( they being alike for Weight, Colour, Duration,& c.) to distinguish them?
A71108	Or must not that which is emaned into being, sometime or other begin to be?
A71108	That the Name of God in Scripture is ever to be understood in that highest Sense?
A71108	The End for which the Unity of the Deity was ever asserted: What does he mean by this very odd Phrase?
A71108	To suppose two infinite Spaces or Durations, must we not necessarily suppose an end or limit to one, before the other can commence?
A71108	To what end is such an Harangue?
A71108	To which he replies, How does our Author already run Taplash?
A71108	Upon which he asks, Whether the Rays are not as old as the Sun?
A71108	What can be a more manifest Contradiction, than that that which had ever been, should once be caused to be?
A71108	What greater Absurdity can there be, than that Beings which have infinite Perfections, should want some?
A71108	What is it then to suppose three Infinites, and those two every way closely united to one another?
A71108	What is the Existence of God the Father, but the Existence of the Nature of God the Father, except he exists distinct from his Nature?
A71108	When you predicate the Name of God of any one of them[ the Persons], you herein express a true but inadequate conception of God?
A71108	Who questions the Power of God to generate his Like?
A71108	Who was ever so ridiculous as to assert more than one Infinite Space, more than one infinite Duration?
A71108	Why do they not sometimes produce Light, which is but a less close Collection?
A71108	Will he explain it by eternal Procession?
A71108	Would it not be to suppose twice as much to emane from the Sun as was in it?
A71108	and a parcel of Guinea''s made of the One, be as good as a parcel of Guinea''s made of the other?
A71108	and he that hath form''d the Eye, shall he not see?
A71108	and what were those greater Works?
A71108	he asks, Who are they that determine any Notion to be true, while they can not conceive it to be so?
A71108	i. e. after such a Manner as can not be known nor told?
A71108	or how can Body and Soul be in the same Space?
A71108	or that that which had been from all Eternity, should from not- being be produced, caused or emaned into Being?
A71108	or whether all Thoughts must be younger than Minds, because they have their Original from them?
A71108	plain Texts?
A71108	says concerning the other Trinitarians, If such a Liberty as this in Interpreting Scripture be allowable, what Work may be made with Scripture?
A71108	that Angels exist by voluntary Creation, but the Son and H. Ghost by necessary Emanation?
A71108	that Jesus Christ desir''d not Divine Honours to be paid to him?
A71108	that there is an unconceivably close Union between them[ the supposed 3 Persons?]
A71108	whether three perfect necessary Natures or one only?
A44701	And another will be added, Is there any thing originally in God, not essential to him?
A44701	And are they no way distinct?
A44701	And doth he give any better account of infinite Wisdom and Power?
A44701	And hath the Creation nothing in it of real Being?
A44701	And if so, why such Union should spoil mutual Conversation and Delight?
A44701	And is his Will the self- same undistinguishable Perfection, in him, with his Knowledg?
A44701	And let him think away those, whether still he doth not presently conceive new?
A44701	And now, thinks he, will my easy admiring Readers, that read me only, and not him, say, What a Baffle hath he given the Enquirer?
A44701	And see whether this will not make all Religion cease too?
A44701	And what is that?
A44701	And which is a Difference with a Witness, in his Questions and Answers; He asks how many Causes are there in God?
A44701	And who apprehends not in what latitude of sense the humane Nature is One, which is common to Adam, and his Posterity?
A44701	And why, Sir, doth this argue him to have forgot the Question?
A44701	And, say I, but why, Sir, are not the three( supposed) created Spirits intelligent Substances?
A44701	Before there was any, was there not an infinitude of Being in the eternal Godhead?
A44701	But doth it tell us what it is?
A44701	But how can he soberly say that?
A44701	But how knows he they are not all Infinite?
A44701	But if any of them happen upon the Enquirer''s Book too, then must they say, how scurvily doth this Matter turn upon himself?
A44701	But if they are distinct, they are distinct, what?
A44701	But say I, how know you?
A44701	But suppose them created with mutual aptitudes to Union, and united, what should hinder but they may continue united, without being confounded?
A44701	But when the Discourse was only of a natural Union, what, in the Name of Wonder, made you dream of a Christmass- Pye?
A44701	But where lies the danger of all this?
A44701	But why can there not?
A44701	But, say I, Do you know what infinite is, or can you comprehend it?
A44701	Doth he not know that Physician and Philosopher, and his Followers, earnestly contended for what he says no Man ever pretended to?
A44701	For I appeal to what Sense he hath left himself, whether Power alone be God exclusive of Wisdom and Goodness?
A44701	For doth he not know all that he can do?
A44701	For what do they modify?
A44701	For who can doubt he knows himself?
A44701	Hath a Man no Substance?
A44701	Have they any thing in re correspondent to them, or have they not?
A44701	He says, How can it be?
A44701	How can any thing be divisible into parts which it hath not in it?
A44701	How can he either affirm or deny of another what he doth not understand?
A44701	How doth he know they can not?
A44701	How inconsiderate a Prevaricator was he that took upon him the present part of a Considerer, so to represent him?
A44701	I know what is commonly said of extrinsecal Denominations: But are such Denominations true, or false?
A44701	I leave him to compound that Difference with his abler Considerator, Whether one Inch and two Inches be equal?
A44701	I say, how can it but be?
A44701	I say, well, and what then?
A44701	I say, why can it not be?
A44701	I would ask this my learned Antagonist, have saying, and not saying, the same signification?
A44701	If contrary Natures might be so united, why not much rather like Natures?
A44701	If not, what is become of his adequate Conception?
A44701	If so, how are they distinguisht?
A44701	If they can not, I would know why?
A44701	In a Series of Discourse, must the beginning touch the end, leaving out what is to come between, and connect both parts?
A44701	In short; Is it the Thing he quarrels with as singular, or the Word?
A44701	Is any Man, according to the ordinary way of speaking, said to hold what is not his formed Judgment?
A44701	Is he a Non- entity?
A44701	Is he a shadow?
A44701	Is his Knowledg, throughout, the same with his effective Power?
A44701	Is it because he knew himself, what he would have others believe?
A44701	Is it because the first is infinite, therefore the two other can not be so?
A44701	Is there no Argument but à pari?
A44701	Is this his demonstration of the impossibility of a Trinity in the Godhead?
A44701	Is this the way to sift out Truth?
A44701	Let any sober Understanding judg, will the same Notion agree to them all?
A44701	Might you not plainly see, he here argued à fortiori?
A44701	Now can he be thought all this while to mean an absolute equality?
A44701	Or hath he no Essence?
A44701	Or is his Essence a Body?
A44701	Or is his Essence a Spirit?
A44701	Or that Society not to be delicious?
A44701	Or that divers other Commentators upon Aristotle, have some abetted, others as vehemently oppos''d them in it?
A44701	Or that''t is Novel?
A44701	Or to whom is it dangerous?
A44701	Or whether Soul and Body united, make nothing different from either, or both disunited?
A44701	Or whether a Man be only such a thing as a Pye?
A44701	Or why might not a Pudding serve as well, if made up of several Ingredients?
A44701	Or will you say the Being of the Creature is the Being of God?
A44701	Qui pauca respicit,& c. But who so bold as —?
A44701	Substances?
A44701	Suppose the Father infinite, can not the other two be infinite also, for ought he knows?
A44701	The Question is, as he now states it himself, why may not three intelligent Substances — be united?
A44701	This therefore he must say, or he saith nothing to the purpose; And why now is it impossible?
A44701	This was the Question, not what John, or Thomas, or James such a One thought?
A44701	Was there never a real Trinitarian in the World before?
A44701	Well; but what is that distinct Modus?
A44701	What a Cyclopick understanding is this?
A44701	What an ignorant Man is this Mr. — to talk of Soul and Body, as both intelligent Substances?
A44701	What if there be no exact Parallel?
A44701	What then serve Mediums for?
A44701	What, did he never hear of an Averroist in the World?
A44701	When they are said to be Modes of Subsistence, what is it that subsists?
A44701	Whether a Trinity in the Godhead be a possible thing?
A44701	Who sees not, it were a Contradiction to suppose them, the same still, and not the same?
A44701	Why hath he only the privilege of exemption from being compell''d by truth?
A44701	Why?
A44701	Will he pretend never to have read any that make Love( as it were intercurrent between the two first) the Character of the third?
A44701	Will he say the former is a singular Opinion?
A44701	or Accidents?
A44701	〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉] How many effects, or things caused?
A62676	24) their Continuance in Being?
A62676	Against whom do they write but against themselves, and practice of Mother- Church?
A62676	And are not the Father and the Son in Scripture frequently opposed to one another as Intelligent Beings?
A62676	And do we not in our Creeds expresly say, the Son is God of God, very God of very God?
A62676	And does it not also make it Damnation not to believe a Difference, nay so great a One as that three of the first are but one of the last?
A62676	And if such Pretences would not excuse the Heathens from being guilty of Polytheism, why should it the Trinitarians?
A62676	And what greater Argument can there be that they are separate Gods, than that they act separately?
A62676	And what is God but such a Being?
A62676	Are not the Father and the Son Relatives, and consequently can not subsist but in different Subjects, and what Subject has each but God?
A62676	Are they three Gods?
A62676	But can any thing be more senseless than this?
A62676	But can the Divine Beings be one and not one in a Natural Sense, or be and not be at the same time naturally united?
A62676	But how can either Son or Spirit be God, who is a Being absolutely perfect, when they want the greatest of Perfections, Self- existence?
A62676	But is it not much more absurd to pay Divine Worship to every one of the three?
A62676	But is not Father in Scripture the Name of the most high God, and( as they say) so is Son and also Spirit?
A62676	But it may be said, Why may not one Infinite as well as one Finite proceed from another?
A62676	But what Assistance can be given an Omnipotent Being?
A62676	But what can Repetition be, or what can it cause, when it makes no manner of Change or Alteration?
A62676	Did the Father and Son communicate each a whole Essence, or but each a part to the Spirit?
A62676	Do not these Men the more they prove their Hypotheses, the clearer demonstrate themselves guilty of Idolatry?
A62676	Does not Christ declare God is a Spirit, how then dare People say that God is three Minds, Spirits, Intelligent Persons?
A62676	Does not the same Argument prove that there are three Gods, since there are three, each of whom is God?
A62676	For to what end should there be three Persons in God, when all three are no more wise, good and powerful than any one is singly?
A62676	How can we after that pretend to say they are the same God?
A62676	How can you condemn the Unitarians when you can not deny but that they worship the self- same God as you do?
A62676	How has Dr. S — th been admired for making the three Almighty Persons three Modes or Postures?
A62676	If God the Son was incarnate, and not God the Father, do we not affirm the Incarnation of one God, and deny it of another?
A62676	If an Almighty Person be multiplied, must not God be so too, except there are two Almighty Persons, and neither of them God?
A62676	If it is absurd to suppose more than one infinite Space, why is it not as absurd to suppose more than one infinite Person?
A62676	If the Persons are the self- same God, how can their Majesty and Glory be( as the Creed saith) equal and co- eternal?
A62676	If the Substance of the Father be every- where, how can the Substance of the Son be every- where too at the same time, and after the same manner?
A62676	If the Union of their Substances, or any thing else make them but one God, why do you say each is God, and pay Divine Worship to each by himself?
A62676	If we did not apprehend what he is, how could we say that he is an all- good, all- powerful, all- wise Being?
A62676	In short, can there be a more absurd Attempt than to endeavour to prove there are three Divine Persons, each of whom is God, and yet but one God?
A62676	Is it not a Contradiction to suppose three Infinites of the same sort, because it is supposing infinite Addition to infinite?
A62676	Is it not absurd in it self to say, one God is compounded( or what other Term you make use of) of three Gods, or three Almighty Persons?
A62676	Is it not equally as absurd to suppose three Infinite Persons as three Gods?
A62676	Is it not saying a thing, and then unsaying it again, which is saying nothing at all?
A62676	Is it not the Design both of the Old and New Testament, to forbid People having several Objects of Divine Worship?
A62676	Is not God predicated of each of the three as well as Person?
A62676	Is not One God one Infinite Spirit, as one Angel is a finite one?
A62676	Is not Repetition a numerical Multiplication?
A62676	Is the same God equal and co- eternal with himself?
A62676	Might they not have said they were but one God, because they had but one common Nature?
A62676	Must not these Notions be very uncouth when they are applied to the Incarnation and Satisfaction?
A62676	Nay, do not the Trinitarians say that Opera Trinitatis ad intra sunt divisa?
A62676	No: Are they three Attributes, or Properties, or Powers of God?
A62676	No: Are they three Parts of God?
A62676	No: Three Names only?
A62676	No: What manner or sort of three are they then?
A62676	On the contrary, if the Persons are really distinct, and each is God, must not each be God distinct from the others?
A62676	Or how can the Spirit, who is neither of these substantial Beings, be it?
A62676	Or if there is but one Being with infinite Understanding, is it not unlawful to adore three such Beings, each of which has an unlimited Understanding?
A62676	Or might they not have said, that Father Saturn communicated his numerical Essence to a multitude of Sons and Daughters?
A62676	Or, what can be discovered to an Omniscient One?
A62676	Or, what if they had said they were several Persons and but one God, tho each Person was God?
A62676	To say God begot a different Person is a very weak Evasion, for what is a Divine Person but God?
A62676	What Unitarian ever denied that God is our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier?
A62676	What greater Absurdity can there be, than that Beings that have infinite unlimited Perfections, should want some Perfections?
A62676	What has Christ to do with Antichrist?
A62676	Whatsoever is necessarily in God, must contain some Perfection; but what Perfection is it for God to be more than one All- sufficient Person?
A62676	Who disbelieveth there is such a Creature as Man, tho he does not know how he was formed?
A62676	With what Applause were the Sabellian Notions of Dr. W''s three Respects or Relations, preach''d before the University of Oxford?
A62676	Would it not be very ridiculous to say, that tho it is impossible for a finite Being to be, and not to be, yet it may be otherwise in infinite Beings?
A62676	and is not a Divine Person an Uncreate, Eternal, Incomprehensible, Almighty Being?
A62676	or at least three Dei and but one God?
A62676	or one God, because there was an inconceiveable close Union between them?
A62676	or said that they were but one God by mutual Consciousness?
A62676	or said, that tho each is God, they were several Modes of one God?
A62676	saith, If it be asked what we do conceive under the Notion of God but a necessary Spiritual Being?
A62676	that is, when they prayed to one they did not pray to the other, but their Devotion terminated on each: Do we not do the same thing?
A62676	the Son only has?
A62676	the substantial Persons are as distinct as any three Men whatsoever?
A66436	8.?
A66436	All that he has to say to this, is, Will he deny positively and directly, that the Lord Christ is a God by Representation and Office?
A66436	All the question is, who is the Lord that thus saith of himself, I am Alpha and Omega,& c?
A66436	And besides, do n''t those Socinians that worship our Saviour, affirm that they worship him as God?
A66436	And can any Divine Appointment make that not to be Idolatry, which in its nature is so?
A66436	And do n''t they then equal him to God, when they pray to him?
A66436	And he adds, May we not have such a Notion of an infinite Attribute?
A66436	And how doth that differ from the modelling and changing all things in Heaven and Earth, to a new and better estate?
A66436	And if any one should ask what is the difference?
A66436	And is not that Idolatry, to give to a Creature the Worship belonging to the Creator?
A66436	And then he smartly returns upon him, How, Sir, is that a good Consequence, or any Consequence at all?
A66436	And then how comes he before to acknowledge the Truth of that saying of his Lordship''s, that we can not comprehend the least Spire of Grass?
A66436	And to close the Objection, Do you not then give the like, nay the same Honour to Christ as to God?
A66436	And what a presumption would it be in a Creature that had a beginning, to say of himself, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last?
A66436	And what advantage could they have from him that was to come into the world for the Redemption of Mankind 4000, 3000,& c. years after?
A66436	And what is it to worship him as God, but to give him Divine Worship?
A66436	And when the Son is called God in Scripture, what is the difference between God the Son, and the Son that is God?
A66436	And where doth the Absurdity lie?
A66436	As if I would ask, What is an infinite Attribute?
A66436	But I do not see how it follows, that if he is from himself, he must be before he was?
A66436	But after all, is this a Misrepresentation?
A66436	But his Grace saith, This Gospel was wrote against Cerinthus; and then, saith our Author, how came the Cerinthians to use it?
A66436	But his Grace will say perhaps, Why?
A66436	But how came that word Existence in?
A66436	But how can the Being of a Creature be commensurate to all the several respects of Duration, past, present, and to come?
A66436	But is no such person ever mentioned in Scripture, as God the Son?
A66436	But is not Prayer a part of Divine Worship, and peculiar to God?
A66436	But is not this to equal him with God, to whom alone we are taught to direct our Prayers?
A66436	But may he urge, Do n''t you acknowledge the Son of God to be God?
A66436	But what a v ● st solitude was there, a Chasm of 4000 years before his Birth and Being?
A66436	But what do they understand by the Word, when the Word is said to be made Flesh?
A66436	But what doth our Author mean?
A66436	But what if those Proofs run no higher than Arianism?
A66436	But what then will become of the other Evangelists?
A66436	But where are those Texts that expresly say, that our Saviour ascended into Heaven before his Ministry?
A66436	But where is the Contradiction?
A66436	But why Some?
A66436	But will he say, Is not this all one, when he that suffer''d and died, is, in our opinion, God as well as Man?
A66436	Did never any Vnitarians or Socinians give Honour and Worship, a like and even the same to Christ as to the Father?
A66436	Do we understand Infinity, a Spirit, or Eternity, the better for all this?
A66436	Do you not pray to Christ?
A66436	Doth the Archbishop reason from the Context?
A66436	For Duration is a continuance of Time; but what Duration was there in Eternity, before there was any Time, or God began to operate and make the World?
A66436	For if the Books that are the Text of it are so mangled, what certainty is there left about any part of it?
A66436	For what Heresy is there in simple Poverty?
A66436	For what Succession was there before the Creation of the World?
A66436	For what doth he say, but what they have said before him?
A66436	For what else is the effect of his Doctrine of Succession in God, and passing from one Duration to another?
A66436	For would you know who those are that he proclaims War against?
A66436	For, Might not the Jews then reply, So Abraham was before Adam, and so both Abraham and Adam were before the World?
A66436	For, is there any word leaning this way?
A66436	For, saith he, What makes him[ the Bishop] say, God must be from himself, or self- originated?
A66436	Had he no way to defend his New Mysteries, but by espousing the Cause of the Atheists?
A66436	Have there been no Christians in the World for 1500 Years, but only the Arians and Trinitarians?
A66436	He demands, saith he, when did this Ascension of our Saviour into Heaven happen?
A66436	How doth he argue against it from the Weakness of the Socinian attempts to prove it, and for which in effect they have nothing to say?
A66436	How from the inconsistency of it with Scripture?
A66436	How is the Scene changed upon this?
A66436	How then can he say that his Grace can raise- the expressions no higher than Arianism?
A66436	Is that Charge a Device of the Trinitarians?
A66436	Let us suppose this, what is it then they deny?
A66436	Must they be excluded out of the number of the Canonical?
A66436	Now supposing it so to be, Why must it thus be supplied?
A66436	Now the question will be, Whether St. John hath used them by chance, as our Author imagines?
A66436	Now this is more than his Adversary charges them with: But what do they mean?
A66436	Or was Socinus the first( for that( it may be) was his Grace''s meaning) who departed from the Arian and Trinitarian Sense of the Context?
A66436	Or why may it not be said, Before Abraham was, I was in being?
A66436	Or will it prove that the Gospel is a Valentinian, a Cerinthian, or Gnostick Gospel?
A66436	Supposing it to be so*, what will follow?
A66436	That is, Was''t thou coexistent with him, and born in his time, who has been so long dead?
A66436	The first is,''That if God was for ever, he must be from himself; and what Notion can we have in our minds concerning it?
A66436	This, I am sure is nothing to the purpose; for what is this to the Pre existence of our Saviour, the present subject of the Discourse?
A66436	To this they captiously object, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
A66436	To what purpose is this?
A66436	What Eternity?
A66436	What Service could he challenge from them, when he himself lay in the Embrio of nothing?
A66436	What if Ebion at last is found to be a Person?
A66436	What is a Spirit?
A66436	What is it then his Grace alledges this Text for?
A66436	What is the Word but the Son of God, and when the Word and the Son are the same, what is the difference between God the Word, and God the Son?
A66436	What is this brought to prove?
A66436	What more plain, if his Argument be true, than that there can be no personal Union between the Soul and Body, such distant extremes?
A66436	Where is it expresly said in that, or any other Text, that our Saviour ascended into Heaven before his Ministry?
A66436	Where the Angels and Heavenly Powers that were put under his direction, and by him employed in defence and succor of the faithful?
A66436	Where was the Paganism and Idolatry he in that dismal Interval abolished?
A66436	Who are the Ancient Unitarians, that our Author at all times speaks so venerably of, and that thus rejected the Books usually ascribed to St. John?
A66436	Whom makest thou thy self?
A66436	Why so?
A66436	Will it prove Cerinthus to be the Author of that Gospel?
A66436	Would this prove what was to be proved, That he that was not fifty years old, had seen Abraham, or that he was Co- existent with Abraham?
A66436	and in what a condition was the whole World of Intelligent Beings, till our Saviours Resurrection and Ascension?
A66436	and yet knew not the time or day of Judgment?
A66436	p. 57. which he more largely prosecutes, p. 64,& c. What saith our Author to this?
A61522	And are these but noisy Nothings to gull People with?
A61522	And by what means now doth this Connexion between these two Ideas appear?
A61522	And can we have any Certainty of Reason as to those things?
A61522	And doth not all this proceed upon Reason as distinct from Ideas?
A61522	And from whence comes it?
A61522	And have you not set your self to disprove it?
A61522	And here the question is not, Whether the mind can not form Complex and Abstracted general Ideas from those simple Ideas?
A61522	And if it does not exist, how can it be the Second Sun?
A61522	And is all this Cabala too, and only to be used when People are to be gulled with noisy Nothings?
A61522	And is not the Sun a particular Substance?
A61522	And now are they not at Leisure to defend them?
A61522	And this was called Visum, or a true Idea; his words are, Quale igitur visum?
A61522	And what Demonstration have we against this?
A61522	And what a narrow compass must our Knowledge then be confined to?
A61522	And what a strange way is this, if it fails us in some of the first Foundations of the real Knowledge of our selves?
A61522	And what answer doth he give to the Testimonies out of it?
A61522	And what harm is there in using the plainest Method in a nice and intricate Subject?
A61522	And what is it which should keep them together, when Life is gone?
A61522	And what now saith our Vnitarian to all this?
A61522	And what then would you think of one who should go about to invalidate this Argument?
A61522	And what then?
A61522	And wherein then lies the difference as to the grounds of Certainty?
A61522	And will not the same Ideas prove our Souls to be Immaterial?
A61522	Are not these Logicians a sort of European Philosophers, who were despised so much before, for this very Notion of Substance?
A61522	Are there not multitudes of Things which we are not able to conceive, and yet it would not be allowed us to suppose what we think fit on that account?
A61522	Are they so indeed?
A61522	As to Advantages from them, that is quite out of our Enquiry; which is concerning the Idea of Nature?
A61522	Because men may have such Ideas in their Minds by the power of Imagination, when there are no Objects to produce them?
A61522	But I must still ask, what becomes of this Combination of Qualities in the second Sun, if there be not a Real Essence to support them?
A61522	But did you not offer to put us into the way of Certainty?
A61522	But doth it cease to be Matter or not?
A61522	But doth not this however take off from the force of an Argument some have used to perswade Men that there is a God?
A61522	But doth this prove it Immaterial?
A61522	But how can a Body operate upon it self without Motion?
A61522	But how can we be sure it is false, when I brought proof it was true, and he answers nothing at all to it?
A61522	But how if this way of Demonstration be made impossible?
A61522	But how is this proved?
A61522	But if after all this Matter may Think, what becomes of these clear and distinct Ideas?
A61522	But is there not an Immortal Soul in Man?
A61522	But it is whether there be not an Antecedent Foundation in the Nature of things upon which we form this Abstract Idea?
A61522	But the question is, Whether that something be a Material or Immaterial Substance?
A61522	But the question now is, whether your general expression had not given him too much occasion for it?
A61522	But this doth not clear the matter; for, is Faith an Vnreasonable Act?
A61522	But this is far from our case, which is, whether that real Spiritual Substance we find in our selves be Material or not?
A61522	But this is not the point before us, whether you do own Substance or not?
A61522	But upon what grounds?
A61522	But what Certainty follows barely from our not being able to Conceive?
A61522	But what Liberty can you conceive in mere Matter?
A61522	But what is all this to you?
A61522	But what is there like Self- consciousness in Matter?
A61522	But what then is a Spirit?
A61522	But whence comes this Certainty, where there can be no Ideas?
A61522	But whether those simple Ideas are the Foundation of our Knowledge and Certainty as to the Nature of Substance?
A61522	But which of the simple Ideas is this built upon?
A61522	But which way do they carry it?
A61522	Can any thing be plainer?
A61522	Can any thing now be plainer than the Disagreement of these two Ideas, by the several Properties which belong to them?
A61522	Did I not expresly mention his Testimony as concurring with the other?
A61522	Did these men look on the Souls of Men, as mere Modifications of Matter?
A61522	Do I ever deny, that the difference of kinds is to be understood from the different Properties?
A61522	Do sensible Qualities carry a Corporeal Substance along with them?
A61522	Doth a Spiritual Substance imply Matter in its Idea or not?
A61522	For is not any Man who understands the meaning of plain Words satisfied that nothing can produce it self?
A61522	For what is it makes the second Sun, to be a true Sun, but having the same Real Essence with the first?
A61522	God may by his Power grant a new Life; but will any man say, God can preserve the Life of a Man when he is dead?
A61522	Granting all this to be true, what is it to the Complex Idea of Nature, which arises from these simple Ideas?
A61522	Hath not this been made use of, as an Argument not only by Christians, but by the wisest and greatest Men among the Heathens?
A61522	Have I any words like these?
A61522	Have these simple Ideas the Notion of a Substance in them?
A61522	Have we any Adequate Idea of this?
A61522	Here you must give me leave to ask you, what you think of the universal Consent of Mankind, as to the Being of God?
A61522	How came we to know that these Accidents were such feeble things?
A61522	How can we then be certain where we have no Ideas from Sensation or Reflection to proceed by?
A61522	How comes Conscience and Religion to be so deeply concerned, whether the Jews had any Anticipation of the Trinity among them?
A61522	How could you mean otherwise, when you acknowledge the Real Essence to be in particular Substances?
A61522	How is this possible, if a Material Substance be capable of Thinking as well as an Immaterial?
A61522	How is this possible?
A61522	How is this possible?
A61522	How so?
A61522	How so?
A61522	How so?
A61522	How then can we come to any Certainty in the way of Ideas?
A61522	I ask then, What Idea you have of the Soul by Reflection?
A61522	If not, to what purpose do we talk of Knowledge by Ideas when we can not so much as know Body and Spirit from each other by them?
A61522	If only some Parts of Matter have a Power of Thinking, how comes so great a difference in the Properties of the same Matter?
A61522	If there be then one and the same Nature in the Individuals, whence comes the difference of Substances to be so necessarily supposed?
A61522	If this be true, here are Relative Properties indeed relating to a Divine Essence: but how?
A61522	If want of Perception be in the very Idea of Matter, how can Matter be made capable of Perceiving?
A61522	Is a general Reason sufficient without particular Ideas?
A61522	Is it not an Assent to a Proposition?
A61522	Is it possible now to think so great a Man look''d on the Soul but as a Modification of the Body, which must be at an end with Life?
A61522	Is it then any Absurdity to call a Spiritual Substance Immaterial?
A61522	Is not here a great ado to make a thing plain by Ideas, which was plainer without them?
A61522	Is not the Being doubtfull if the Idea be; and all our Certainty come in by Ideas?
A61522	Is not this giving up the Cause of Certainty?
A61522	Is the Idea of Matter and Spirit distinct or not?
A61522	Is there no difference between the bare Being of a Thing, and its Subsistence by it self?
A61522	Is there not the Real Essence of the Sun in that Individual, we call the Sun?
A61522	Now how can the Idea of Liberty agree with these simple Ideas of Body?
A61522	Or how is it possible to apprehend that meer Body should perceive that it doth perceive?
A61522	Should I go about to justifie this, by the Rules of the ancient and best Masters of Writing in Arguments of such a Nature?
A61522	The Question is not, Whether in forming the Notion of Common Nature, the Mind doth not abstract from the Circumstances of particular Beings?
A61522	The question I put is, Whether Matter can think or not?
A61522	The question is not, Whether you doubt or deny any such Being as Substance in the World?
A61522	The question is, what the Sense of these places was, and how they are to be applied to Christ?
A61522	Then why not in other cases as well?
A61522	Therefore a Spirit is only an Appearance?
A61522	To be dissipated in the common Air?
A61522	To what purpose?
A61522	What Certainty we can have as to Substance, if we can have no Idea of it?
A61522	What Disposition of Matter is requir''d to Thinking?
A61522	What can be ridiculing the Notion of Substance, and the European Philosophers for asserting it, if this be not?
A61522	What can express the Soul to be of a different Substance from the Body, if these words do it not?
A61522	What demonstrative Reason, nay, what probable Argument hath he offer''d against this?
A61522	What follows?
A61522	What is that, but to attain Certainty in such things, where we could not otherwise do it?
A61522	What is that?
A61522	What is the meaning of carrying with them a supposition of a Substratum and a Substance?
A61522	What is the meaning of this?
A61522	What is this Conceiving?
A61522	What simple Ideas inform''d you of it?
A61522	What simple Ideas then are there in Man, upon which you ground the Certainty of this Proposition, That there is a God?
A61522	Where did I ever give the least Cause to suspect my owning the Iewish Cabala, as the unwritten Word of God?
A61522	Where do I deny that Abstraction is made by an Act of the Mind?
A61522	Wherein now do his grounds of Certainty differ from yours?
A61522	Whoever dreamt of a Specifick Essence being the Efficient Cause?
A61522	Why not a word said to it?
A61522	Why, what''s the matter?
A61522	You can not say it doth: Then it may be Immaterial: But how come we to know things but by their distinct Ideas?
A61522	are we at a loss here too, and yet all our Certainty depend no the perceiving the Agreement and Disagreement of Ideas?
A61522	but whether by vertue of these Principles, you can come to any Certainty of Reason about it?
A61522	nor whether the Notion you have of it be clear and distinct?
A61522	not as to our Knowledge?
A61522	or to be lost in the vast Confusion of Matter?
A61522	or, That what is not can not make it self to be?
A59905	And so of the rest?
A59905	And what are these Modi subsistendi, by which the Divine Persons are distinguished from each other?
A59905	And what then?
A59905	And what then?
A59905	And why then should not Infidels as well have the benefit of this Principle, as Hereticks?
A59905	And yet I desire to know, why that may not be the Catholick Faith, and necessary to Salvation, which has always been matter of Controversie?
A59905	But I desire to know, what Articles of our Faith have not been controverted by some Hereticks or other?
A59905	But can any Creature be holy and perfect as God is?
A59905	But suppose the worst, how does this concern the Doctrine of the Incarnation?
A59905	But suppose then, that the Natural Construction of the Words import such a Sense, as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason?
A59905	But was not the Son also with the Holy Ghost, and is not he too( according to the Trinitarians) God, or a God?
A59905	But what becomes of his beloved Socinus all this while?
A59905	But what if it be against a mans Conscience to profess it?
A59905	But what makes St. Gregory dispute thus nicely about the use of words, and oppose the common and ordinary Forms of Speech?
A59905	But when he thinks a second time of it, will he say, that the Church of God in Athanasius''s Age, was not of the same Faith with him?
A59905	But where in Scripture is the Word called God the Son?
A59905	But why does he confine this bowing the Knee to the last Iudgment?
A59905	Can any thing be more easie and obvious, and more agreeable to the Doctrine of the Trinity?
A59905	Could the Apostle mean by this Phrase, that they were baptized in the Name of Moses?
A59905	Did he in good earnest believe, that there is but One man in the World?
A59905	Did he never then hear of what we call Emanative Effects, which coexist with their Causes?
A59905	Do we say, a thing is coeternal and cotemperary with itself?
A59905	Does a Son necessarily signifie one who is begotten of two Parents?
A59905	Doth not a Man contradict himself, when the Term or Terms in his Negation, are the same with those in his Affirmation?
A59905	Doth, I say, the Holy Scripture compel us to this contradictory acknowledgment?
A59905	For are not these Questions of Faith, whether there be a God and a Providence, and whether Christ be that Messias, who came from God?
A59905	For does not his Reason equally extend to the Christian Faith it self, as to those Points, which have been controverted in Christian Churches?
A59905	For does our Author in earnest think, that God can not have a Son, unless he begets him, as one man begets another?
A59905	Has the Catholick Faith any such Priviledge as not to be controverted?
A59905	His first is, that of Iob; Will ye speak wickedly for God?
A59905	His next Proof is, that he humbled himself, and became obedient, which is all he cites; but what does he prove from this?
A59905	How can Three distinct Persons have but one Numerical Substance?
A59905	How did he become poor for our sakes, who was never rich?
A59905	How does a Human Soul discover its glory but by visible Actions?
A59905	How shall we then know, when the Apostle has respect to the words he quotes?
A59905	How?
A59905	I ask, whether the Son doth not, as he is a Son, derive both Life and Godhead from the Father?
A59905	I desire to know what is meant by being baptized in the Name of the Father?
A59905	I hope not all, for that is a very good Discourse, and I only wish for the Author''s sake, si sic omnia; but pray, what is the matter?
A59905	I will only ask this Author, Whether the Jews were baptized in the Name of Moses?
A59905	I would ask this Author, whether the Scripture compels him to believe but One God, in his Sense of it, that is, but One who is God?
A59905	If each Person must be God and Lord, must not each Person be Uncreated, Incomprehensible, Eternal, Almighty?
A59905	If it does not, why does he believe it, and insist so peremptorily on it, in defiance of the whole Catholick Church?
A59905	If they were not, let him tell me, how their being baptized into Moses comes to signifie their being baptized in the Name of Moses?
A59905	If this Inspiration be without God, in Creatures, who are inspired by him; how is it the Spirit of God?
A59905	If this be so, I desire to know, How the Spirit of God differs from his Gifts and Graces?
A59905	Is any Creature capable of the Government of the world?
A59905	Is it only to take him for our Instructor and Guide?
A59905	Is not the Sun the Cause of Light, and Fire of Heat?
A59905	Is not this like swearing Allegiance to the King, and to his Son, and to his Power, or to his Wisdom?
A59905	Not coeternal, for this also plainly intimates, that they are distinct: For how coeternal, if not distinct?
A59905	Now what of all this?
A59905	Or does our Author think, that no Atheist or Infidel, no unbelieving Jew, or Heathen, ever used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed?
A59905	Or is it to worship and obey him for our God?
A59905	Quae molitio, quae ferramenta, qui vectes, quae machinae, qui Ministri, tanti muneris suerunt?
A59905	Reason tells us, that Three Gods can not be One God, but does Reason tell us, That Three Divine Persons can not be One God?
A59905	So that all his Absurdities and Contradictions are vanished only into Nicodemus his Question, How can these things be?
A59905	So that the Holy Spirit receives the things of Christ; But how does he receive them?
A59905	Suppose this,( for I have forgot what his Demonstrations are, and have not the Book now by me) what is this to the Trinity and Incarnation?
A59905	That he knew not where Lazarus was laid, because he asks, Where have ye laid him?
A59905	That is, because they affirm these Divine Persons to be distinct, therefore they must say, they are numerically the same; and what then?
A59905	That is, the term God is affirmed of Three, and yet denied to belong to more than One; And is not this a Contradiction?
A59905	Therefore all these Articles make indeed but One Article, which is this?
A59905	Though a greater Extension can not be contained in a less, what is this to an infinite Mind''s being present every where without Extension?
A59905	Thus what can be a more pure and simple Act than Wisdom and Truth?
A59905	What becomes then of his Reason, which is as certain and evident as any Proposition in Euclid?
A59905	What impudence is this, to think to sham the World at this time a day, with such stories as these?
A59905	What is Justice and Goodness, but an equal distribution of Things, or a true and wise proportion of Rewards and Punishments?
A59905	What is perfect Power, but perfect Truth and Wisdom, which can do, whatever it knows?
A59905	What is the distinction between Essence, and Personality and Subsistence?
A59905	What shall be done unto Thee, thou lying Tongue?
A59905	What then?
A59905	What thinks he of the Nicene Fathers, who condemned Arius?
A59905	What( says he) shall we do here?
A59905	What?
A59905	Wherefore?
A59905	Why so?
A59905	Why the Soul can leave the Body, when the Body is disabled to perform the Offices of Life, but can not leave it before?
A59905	Will ye accept his Person?
A59905	and can God communicate infinite Wisdom and infinite Power to a Creature, or a finite Nature?
A59905	and can he conceive a Sun without Light, or Fire without Heat?
A59905	and knoweth the things of God, as the Spirit of a Man knoweth the things of a man?
A59905	and must not God then be represented by One, who is God?
A59905	and suffered him to have wrought Miracles, to cheat the world into this belief?
A59905	and talk deceitfully for him?
A59905	and why may not this be represented by his saying, Let there be Light?
A59905	and yet, can Light be without the Sun, or Heat without Fire?
A59905	are we obliged under the penalty of the loss of Salvation to believe it, whether we can or no?
A59905	because he voluntarily condescends below the Dignity of his Nature, does he forfeit the Dignity of his Nature?
A59905	but will he particularly intercede for us?
A59905	does not this require infinite Wisdom and infinite Power?
A59905	doth God require of any man an impossible Condition in order to Salvation?
A59905	is a meer Creature a fit Lieutenant or Representative of God in Personal or Prerogative Acts of Government and Power?
A59905	must not every Being be represented by one of his own Kind, a Man by a Man, an Angel by an Angel, in such Acts as are proper to their Natures?
A59905	not believe Scripture?
A59905	that Obedience is part of his Humiliation?
A59905	that is, can a Creature be made a true and essential God?
A59905	that is, could the Apostle mean, what he knew was not true?
A59905	that is, that the Sun should be without Light, and the Fire without Heat?
A59905	therefore he is not God?
A59905	therefore he is not God?
A59905	was the Word the Father?
A59905	when he cites the very words, as a Prophesie of Christ?
A59905	whether the Soul have parts, as the Body has, which answer to every part of the Body, and touch in every Point?
A59905	whether upon their supposition of his being a meer Man, if he had arrogated to himself to be God, God would have permitted this?
A59905	why innocent Beasts must die to expiate the sins of men?
A59905	will ye contend for God?
A86947	21, What is to be seen there?
A86947	And Joseph said unto his brethren, I am Joseph: Doth my Father yet live?
A86947	And he said anto me, Son of man, hast thou seen this?
A86947	And how can Blood witness Salvation, Justification, and the like, seeing the VVater and Blood of Christ was long since spilt upon the ground?
A86947	And it grew up with his children; that is, with Christ''s children: Who are those?
A86947	And through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish for whom Christ died?
A86947	And whence had the Seraphim it?
A86947	Are you contented to be undone, to lose all that you have and are?
A86947	Are you willing to have all burnt up in you by that fiery flame that issueth out of Christs mouth?
A86947	Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?
A86947	Born where?
A86947	But do you work with your hands, and set upon some manual calling or other?
A86947	But how shall he come?
A86947	But of what use?
A86947	But shall not he come and reign, with that very flesh and body which he had at Ierusalem?
A86947	But some will say, How are the dead raised?
A86947	But the righteousness which is of faith, speaketh on this wise: Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven?
A86947	But we hope you would have us have a livelihood?
A86947	But what doth the Father witness of Christ?
A86947	But what is a daughter of Hierusalem?
A86947	But what is it to seek righteousness, as it were, by the Law?
A86947	But what is the glory of Angels?
A86947	But what is the righteousness of Christ?
A86947	But what is the righteousness which is by believing?
A86947	But what is this live coal?
A86947	But what saith it?
A86947	But what should I not say in my heart?
A86947	But what word?
A86947	But when will he come?
A86947	But who is it that saith, that Christ is within us?
A86947	But who may abide the day of his coming, and who shall stand whon he appeareth?
A86947	But why is Christ called the Word of God in Scripture?
A86947	But why is God called the Father?
A86947	But why is he called the Word of Truth?
A86947	But you will ask me, What is that?
A86947	But you will ask me, What is the Father?
A86947	But, may some say, How can VVater witness Sanctification, washing, cleansing of the soul?
A86947	But, may some say, How shall I confess him, when I do not know whether or no he is in me?
A86947	But, may some say, How shall we know whether we have a Call to this or to that?
A86947	But, may some say, Where is the promise of his coming?
A86947	Can you preach twice every day of the week throughout the yeer, without other mens books?
A86947	Can you preach, all books being taken away from you save the Bible, at any time when you are desired to do it?
A86947	Deal seriously with me; did not Christ within thee, discover it to thee?
A86947	Do you know what you desire, what you ask for?
A86947	Do you love it as Christ loves it?
A86947	Doth God take care for Oxen?
A86947	For want of a feeling of Christ within us, we are ready to say in our hearts, though not with our mouthes, Who shall descend into the deep?
A86947	Friends, do ye believe it?
A86947	Friends, why do ye not sing and shout for joy, seeing the Lord is within you?
A86947	Have none but they a warrant to write?
A86947	How confess him?
A86947	How do you know that you do not injoy him?
A86947	How nigh me?
A86947	How shall we live ▪ say they, else?
A86947	How?
A86947	I shall answer this, by asking another Question: How did Abel, being dead, speak?
A86947	If it be so, that Christ is within us, Then let us confess him with our mouthes; this is our duty, to confess him: Whom?
A86947	If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?
A86947	If we have sown unto you all spiritual things, is it a great thing, if we shall reap your carnal things?
A86947	Is not the same Spirit in one, as in the other?
A86947	Is not this good news?
A86947	Is there any thing to be seen or learn''d from her?
A86947	Is there any thing to be seen that is worth the seeing, in Egypt, where there is nothing but blackness ▪ darkness, bondage, cruelty, and the like?
A86947	Just so, poor souls many times say to God, when he seems to their souls as a man amazed, and as one that can not save them; Why art thou so, Lord?
A86947	Let me see you Priests do so: where is there such a spirit as Paul had, among you?
A86947	Or I onely and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
A86947	Or saith he it altogether for our sakes?
A86947	Or saith not the Law the same also?
A86947	Or, who shall descend into the deep?
A86947	Say I these things as a man?
A86947	Say not in thine heart, Who shall descend into the deep?
A86947	The Question is this: Who is he that overcometh the world?
A86947	The Word is nigh, Whom?
A86947	The priests said not, Where is the Lord?
A86947	The prophets prophesie falsly, and the priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so: and what will you do in the end thereof?
A86947	The word of faith, which we preach ▪ What word is that?
A86947	Then why do you not rejoyce and sing?
A86947	These two things following: First, Who shall ascend into heaven?
A86947	This is a paradox, a strange thing: how can a man be crucified, and yet live?
A86947	Thus saith the Lord, O priests, that despise my name; and ye say, Wherein have we despised thy Name?
A86947	To the first, I ask you this: Is all Truth in learned godly men?
A86947	VVhat have you seen the Lord, and are alive?
A86947	VVhat is that?
A86947	VVhat is the glory?
A86947	VVhat, Christ born in Egypt, among the Egyptians, where there is nothing but cruelty, darkness, and bondage?
A86947	VVhat, a harlot?
A86947	VVhat, have you seen the Lord, and are not dead, and are not undone?
A86947	VVhen God speaks to a soul, Thou art the man that hast sinned, that hast slain Christ; either he will cry out, VVhat shall I do to be saved?
A86947	VVhere?
A86947	VVhy, is there any thing to be seen in Babylon, among the Babylonians?
A86947	Wait: who knows but that he may come down in a cloud of darkness into your hrarts?
A86947	We are ready to speak it in our hearts, though not in our mouthes, Who shall ascend into heaven?
A86947	What are these clouds?
A86947	What are those?
A86947	What care they for offending the Conscience of Gods people?
A86947	What cloud?
A86947	What doth the holy Ghost witness?
A86947	What greater testimony can there be in Heaven, then the testimony of three?
A86947	What is Philistia?
A86947	What is Tyre?
A86947	What is it to walk in the Name of the Lord?
A86947	What is meant by that day?
A86947	What is meant by the holy mountains?
A86947	What is my reward then?
A86947	What is that?
A86947	What is that?
A86947	What is that?
A86947	What is that?
A86947	What is that?
A86947	What is to be seen in Rahab?
A86947	What is to be seen there?
A86947	What is to be seen there?
A86947	What makes you say so?
A86947	What makes you think he is not within you?
A86947	What shall we take notice of?
A86947	What singers and players on Instruments shall be there?
A86947	What then shall it be?
A86947	What was Ethiopia?
A86947	What, born in that sinful City?
A86947	What, make mention of Rahab and Babylon?
A86947	What, my God?
A86947	What, to me?
A86947	Where hadst thou it?
A86947	Where is it?
A86947	Where is the wise?
A86947	Where?
A86947	Where?
A86947	Where?
A86947	Where?
A86947	Wherefore?
A86947	Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
A86947	Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk thereof?
A86947	Who gave it thee?
A86947	Who goeth a warfare at his own charges?
A86947	Who is that?
A86947	Who planteth a Vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof?
A86947	Who shall stand when he appeareth?
A86947	Why can not you acknowledge it?
A86947	Why do you say so?
A86947	Why do you say so?
A86947	Why is he called the word of faith?
A86947	Why should ye fear?
A86947	Why shouldst thou seem to be as a man amazed with us, and as a mighty man that can not save us?
A86947	Why?
A86947	Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar, and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee?
A86947	Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
A86947	and what is the holy Ghost?
A86947	and why the holy Ghost?
A86947	and with what body do they come?
A86947	is it a great one or not?
A86947	is it a truth to your souls?
A86947	or in what doth the matter of it consist?
A86947	what asking ▪ each other is there amongst them, What is such a Living worth, and such a Living; is it worth any thing?
A86947	what is the Son?
A86947	what is the reason of it?
A86947	where is the disputer of this world?
A86947	where is the scribe?
A86947	who would not wait, seeing there is no safety in resisting, but in patiently waiting?
A86947	why the Son?
A59853	A whole Divinity made up of Three partial and incomplete Divinities?
A59853	And are they not Three who have all the Perfections of the Divine Nature?
A59853	And does not the Scripture, do not all Trinitarians, with the whole Catholick Church, own this?
A59853	And if this had not been the belief of the Catholick Church, what meant their Zeal against this Heresy?
A59853	And must this One Undivided Monad be in Three separate Localities, because it subsists in three distinct Persons?
A59853	And what is the Cons ● quence of this?
A59853	And what is there unintelligible in all this?
A59853	And what is to be done now?
A59853	And when the Arians objected against our Saviour''s saying, I am in the Father, and the Father in me; How can this be in that, and that in this?
A59853	And why may not Number then belong to the Divinity, though it be not quantum, have no Predicamental, that is, Corporeal Quantity?
A59853	And will any Trinitarian deny, That the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Ghost is?
A59853	And yet I dare appeal to any man of a free and unbiass''d Reason in this Cause, What is that Natural Notion we have of One God?
A59853	Are Spirits united by Juxta- position of Parts, or Penetration of Dimensions?
A59853	Are there then as many peculiar Manners and Modes of Subsistence, as there are, or ever have been, or ever shall be, distinct Persons in the World?
A59853	But after all, Do these Fathers deny, that the Divine Nature is One Individual Nature?
A59853	But at this rate, what Divinity do we leave for the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
A59853	But ca n''t there be more than one of these Eternal, infinitely Wise, infinitely Good, and Omnipotent Natures?
A59853	But do not all Catholick Christians own, That there is but One Infinite, Inseparable, Undivided Nature, in Three Persons?
A59853	But does this make God True and Perfect Man?
A59853	But how can this be, if Person and Essence, Suppositum and Nature be the same, as it is in God?
A59853	But how can we learn God''s Love and Good Will to Mankind, from this Doctrine, if it be not true?
A59853	But how will this agree with the Notion of One Divinity, or One Individual Divine Nature?
A59853	But if God redeems us by a Man, however he be enabled by a Divine Power, Why is he said to give his Son for us?
A59853	But in good earnest, does any sober Christian want an Answer to this Argument?
A59853	But in what sense then can we say, That the Trinity is One God, or that Three Persons are One God?
A59853	But is not this a kind of Sabellian Composition of a God?
A59853	But now will any Catholick Christian say, that thus it is in the Ever Blessed Trinity?
A59853	But still what is all this to the Unity of God?
A59853	But suppose they could not distinguish them, does this prove that God is Incarnate in such men; or would it be a reason to worship such men as God?
A59853	But the Question is, In what sense the Scripture teaches that there is but One God?
A59853	But what becomes then of the Son, and Holy Ghost?
A59853	But what is this Brightness, and what is this Glory?
A59853	But what is this common Nature, which is seen by Reason?
A59853	But what possible Sense can we make of this?
A59853	But what room then does this leave for a Real Trinity of Persons, in this One, Simple, Uncompounded, Indivisible, Inseparable Nature?
A59853	But who ever thought of causes of Distinction and Unity in an Eternal Nature, which has no cause?
A59853	But, What it is that makes it One; or what the formal Conception of its Unity is?
A59853	Can Eternal Truth, and Infinite Wisdom in any thing vary from it self, to make two Eternal Truths, and Infinite Wisdoms?
A59853	Can any thing else give us so true and perfect a Character and Idea of each of them, as this does?
A59853	Can the Specifick Notional Unity of Human Nature, make three men one man, as the One common Divine Nature makes Three Persons One God?
A59853	Displicet cuiquam in Synodo Nicaena homousion esse susceptum?
A59853	Do not all the Christian Creeds teach us to profess our Faith in One God the Father, from whom the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their Godhead?
A59853	Do they mean, that there is but one Numerical Subsisting Nature common to all the Individuals?
A59853	Does the Father Will any thing?
A59853	Ergo inquis, das aliquam substantiam esse sermonem?
A59853	For what do these Fathers mean by a common Nature?
A59853	For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of man, which is in him?
A59853	For will we say, That the Trinity, or Three Persons, are but One Person?
A59853	Has God any Place; does he subsist in any thing but himself?
A59853	He must then partake of the Father: But what is that, and whence is it?
A59853	Here then we join issue with them, and desire them to shew us, what is impossible or contradictious in this Faith?
A59853	How there can be Three Incommunicable Persons, and Suppositums, and but One Nature, and that communicable to more than One?
A59853	Iam nunc quaeritur, quis quomodo utatur aliqua re& vocabulo ejus?
A59853	If I am asked not only Who but What the Three in the Ever- blessed Trinity are?
A59853	If the Unity of the Divine Nature be but a Notion, the Unity of God, the Unity of the Trinity, which is this One God, must be a meer Notion also?
A59853	If you inquire, what Spirit, and what Matter is?
A59853	In qua ● ffigie Dei?
A59853	Is it any thing more, than that there is and can be but One Eternal Self- originated Being, who is the Principle or Cause of all other Beings?
A59853	Is it because none is, or can be God, True and Perfect God, but he, who is God of himself, Self- originated and Unbegotten?
A59853	Is it such a direct Contradiction to Sense and Reason, to say, That there is alius,& alius,& alius, in the Trinity, but not aliud?
A59853	Is it the Son of God, that Eternal Word, which was in the beginning, was with God, and was God?
A59853	Is not the Son God?
A59853	Is not the Unity of God the fundamental Article of Natural Religion?
A59853	Is there any thing else which is common to them, but the Name and Nature of God?
A59853	Is this Extraordinary Power a Divine Subsisting Person, in the true and proper Notion of a Person?
A59853	Is this Extraordinary Power so united to Human Nature, as to become Man?
A59853	Let me then ask this plain Question: When Five hundred Men hear the same Man speak, do they all hear one and the same Voice, or Five hundred Voices?
A59853	Let our Socinian Adversaries tell us, what there is absurd, impossible, or contradictious in this Faith?
A59853	Non haben ● o autem filium cum ipse sum flius, quem ● do pater ero?
A59853	Now if this be true, what Apology can be made for them?
A59853	Now what is the meaning of this?
A59853	Now will any man say, That the One Divinity, or One Divine Nature, and One God, is a meer Notion?
A59853	Now, says he, in what Image of God, was he?
A59853	Or how can the Father, who is greater, be at all in the Son, who is less?
A59853	Or how much we must believe of them?
A59853	Or what wonder is it, that the Son should be in the Father, when it is written of us all, That in him we live, and move, and have our being?
A59853	Prolatus est Sermo Dei an non?
A59853	Quid agis Lot sancte?
A59853	Quid est enim Filius de eo quod Pater est?
A59853	So far he is in the right; but what is this different way?
A59853	That a Perfect, Living, Subsisting Image, should not be perfectly the same with its Prototype, from whom it receives its Being and Nature?
A59853	That the One Common Divinity is One and Common, only as One Common Humanity is, that is, that it is perfectly the same in all?
A59853	The Question then is, Whether we must not believe the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation?
A59853	The short Question is this; Whether a True, Proper, Divine Person was Incarnate, in the Incarnation of Christ?
A59853	Then, says he, he must be the Son of God by participation; what is it then he partakes of?
A59853	These are two very different Questions, and of a very different consideration, What God is?
A59853	This sounds well; but why does he not speak out, and tell us what this Form of God is?
A59853	Three in One Substance, and thrice Once Substance?
A59853	Thus what is the Unity of Energy and Operation, but the same Conscious Will and Power acting distinctly, but inseparably in Three?
A59853	Vacua& inanis res est sermo De ●, qui filius dictus est, qui ipse Deus cogneminatus est?
A59853	Was he a Human Person; or the Person of the Son of God appearing in Human Nature?
A59853	Well, But is not the Father then, in his own Person, True and Perfect God, and the Son True and Perfect God, and the Holy Ghost True and Perfect God?
A59853	Well, but what is this Essence of a Mind, and this Unity of Essence, which makes a Mind One?
A59853	Well: What is necessary to be believed concerning the Trinity?
A59853	Well; but are there not Individual Men then, as well as a Common Nature?
A59853	What difference between Three Substances, and tria supposita?
A59853	What is it then that subsists by it self?
A59853	What then was Christ''s Human Nature?
A59853	What then was wanting to make us Human Nature a Human Person?
A59853	When we profess to believe that there are Three in the Unity of the Godhead the next question is, What Three they are?
A59853	Whether the True Divine Nature subsisting in him, a True Divine Person?
A59853	Will they venture to say, That it is absurd or contradictious, that God should have a Son?
A59853	Would not Human Nature be as perfectly the same in Three Persons or Subsistences, as the Idea of Human Nature is one and the same in Three Minds?
A59853	Would they have taught, That the Divinity may be numbred, and yet is without Number?
A59853	and Who this God is?
A59853	and how then is this One Individual Nature?
A59853	and the Spirit God?
A59853	but one Universal Human Nature in all the particular men in the World?
A59853	but, Whether the Son and Holy Ghost were truly and really distinct Persons from the Father, as the Catholick Church always believed?
A59853	if God have no Eternal Son, and therefore did not give his Eternal Son to become Man, and to suffer and dye for us?
A59853	or, How many partial Conceptions are united in One Idea?
A59853	that is, Have not each of these Divine Persons all the Divine Perfections included in the Notion and Idea of God?
A59853	thought I; How is this applicable to the Unity of God?
A59853	ut inanis solida,& vacuus plena,& incorporalis corporalia operatus sit?
A59853	whether he be Consubstantial with the Father, or have only a Nature like the Fathers, but not the same?
A59853	whether he be true perfect God, in opposition to the most perfect created Nature, or be only a made and Creature- God?
A59853	whether there were any time, the least conceivable moment before the Son was?
A61550	1. relates to any thing beyond the beginning of the Gospel, and that Christ the Word, was before John the Baptists Preaching?
A61550	10. from the 30. to the 39?
A61550	And I only desire to know whether you think the Evidence of Sense sufficient, as to the true Body of Christ, where it is supposed to be present?
A61550	And I pray what follows?
A61550	And I pray, into what would you resolve it?
A61550	And I pray, now tell me seriously, did the Tradition of Transubstantiation lie unquestion''d and quiet all this while?
A61550	And did you know the difference between the Substance of Flesh and Fish by your Tast?
A61550	And hath God revealed the Doctrine of the Trinity to the Church in this Age?
A61550	And is it not rather a justification of that sense, which they took his words in?
A61550	And what then?
A61550	And why may not St. Chrysostom mean so here?
A61550	And why not as well in any other?
A61550	Are there not strange things in them concerning the Eucharist?
A61550	Are those Accidents then the Body of Christ?
A61550	Are you in earnest?
A61550	Are you sure that Origen said this?
A61550	As for instance, can we not know a Man from a Horse, or an Elephant from a Mouse, or a piece of Bread from a Church?
A61550	As to what?
A61550	But I pray tell me, do you think the Fathers had no distinct Notion of a Body and Spirit, and the Essential Properties of both?
A61550	But I pray, Sir, what say you to what I have been discoursing?
A61550	But are there no other things impossible to be done?
A61550	But can we not know the difference of one Substance from another, by our Senses?
A61550	But doth this prove, that the Substance of the Bread is changed into the Substance of Christ''s Body?
A61550	But how is it possible for you to know it was so well known, if they spake not of it?
A61550	But how should we know their Faith but by their Works?
A61550	But is it not impossible for the same Body to be in two different times?
A61550	But is there any Greatness like that of Divine Honour?
A61550	But may not God advance a mere Creature to that Dignity, as to require Divine Worship to be given to him by his fellow- creatures?
A61550	But still how shall it be known that the Church received this Doctrine unanimously, if they do not speak expresly of it?
A61550	But suppose he did, must he enter with his flesh and bones, and not much rather by a peculiar presence of his Grace?
A61550	But suppose the Question be, about the Sense of these places which relate to the Churches Authority, how can a Man come to the certain Sense of them?
A61550	But that is not discerned by the Senses, he saith: and if it were, will he say, that the Substance of Bread is the Body of Christ?
A61550	But to make this more plain, Do you make any difference between Nature and Person?
A61550	But what if there be as great a repugnancy from St. Augustin''s Argument, for a Body to be present in several places at once?
A61550	But what is all this to the Testimony of the Christian Fathers?
A61550	But what is this to the Eucharist, you may say?
A61550	But what saith he?
A61550	But whence come you to know that the Church is to give the Sense of the Scriptures?
A61550	But where doth that speak of Transubstantiation?
A61550	But, doth this prove that there is no Unity of Nature between the Father and the Son?
A61550	Can you hold your Countenance when you repeat these things?
A61550	Did you not tell me, you would avoid Impertinencies?
A61550	Do not all things comprehend the Heaven and Earth?
A61550	Do not you know, that these are rejected as Supposititious, by your own Writers?
A61550	Do not you see already?
A61550	Do we deny the truth of Christ''s Human Nature?
A61550	Do we live among nothing but Accidents?
A61550	Do you believe that there are any Mysteries in the Christian Doctrine above Reason, or not?
A61550	Do you mean the same which the Church of Rome doth by it, in the Council of Trent?
A61550	Do you not say so in plain terms?
A61550	Do you then in earnest give up the Fathers as Disputants to us; but retain them as Believers to your selves?
A61550	Do you think Bellarmin could produce any thing like this for Transubstantiation?
A61550	Do you think I should not presently deny your Example, and say, your very Supposition is Heretical?
A61550	Do you think all hard words are akin, and so the affinity rises between Apollinarists and Transubstantiation?
A61550	Do you think one Creature can create another?
A61550	Do you think that Irenoeus believed the substance of Christ''s Body was turned into the substance of our Bodies, in order to their nourishment?
A61550	Doth Irenoeus say so?
A61550	Doth not the Scripture say, there are some things impossible for God to do?
A61550	Doth this look like correcting a dangerous mistake in the Jews?
A61550	Expresly against it?
A61550	For I pray what doth he mean when he saith, he believes from Christ''s own Words, that it is the Body of Christ?
A61550	For, how is it possible for extended Parts to have no Relation to Place?
A61550	God or the Church?
A61550	Have I not hitherto owned, that there must be something incomprehensible by us, in what relates to the Divine Nature?
A61550	Have a little Patience; Did not Christ design by his Doctrine to root out those false Religions?
A61550	Have you observed what the Fathers say about the difference of Body and Spirit?
A61550	How can this hold, if the Body of Christ can be in Heaven and Earth at the same time?
A61550	How can those men want Proofs, that can draw Transubstantiation from these Words, which are so plain against it?
A61550	How doth it appear?
A61550	How doth that appear?
A61550	How then can the Creation prove an Infinite Power?
A61550	I hope you allow his Epistles?
A61550	I pray answer me one Question, Did you ever keep Lent?
A61550	I pray tell me what you mean by a Body, as it is opposed to a Spirit?
A61550	I pray tell me, Were there not false Religions in the World when Christ came into it to plant the true Religion?
A61550	I pray tell me, doth the difference between God and his Creatures, depend on the will of the Church?
A61550	I pray tell me, have you any certainty there is such a thing as a material Substance in the World?
A61550	If so be then it appears more difficult in an infinite and incomprehensible Being, what Cause have we to wonder at it?
A61550	If the Question be, how the same individual Nature can be communicated to three distinct Persons?
A61550	If this were the same, what need any distinction?
A61550	Into no Reason?
A61550	Is it from the Scripture, or not?
A61550	Is it lawful by the Christian Doctrine to give proper Divine Worship to a Creature?
A61550	Is it not as repugnant for a Body to be after the manner of a Spirit, as for a Body and Spirit to be the same?
A61550	Is it not more wonderful, as Bellarmin observes, that there should be one Hypostasis in two Natures, than one Body in two Places?
A61550	Is it the Accidents he speaks of before?
A61550	Is it the Substance of Bread?
A61550	Is it then in the Churches Power to give that to a Creature, which belongs only to God?
A61550	Is not here one Sense more than you believe?
A61550	Is that your meaning?
A61550	Is there a perpetual Miracle to deceive our Senses?
A61550	Is there any real difference between the Nature of a Body and Spirit?
A61550	Is there no difference between the Perception of Sense, and the Evidence of Sense?
A61550	Is there not the same Repugnancy for a Body in Heaven to be upon Earth, as for a Body upon Earth to be in Heaven?
A61550	Is this it which chokes your Reason, so that you can not swallow the Doctrine of the Church in this matter?
A61550	Is this possible to be reconciled with your Notion of a Body being present after the manner of a Spirit?
A61550	Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, I said ye are Gods?
A61550	No?
A61550	Nothing more, but that St. Augustin disproved it, because his Body could not be at the same time in the Sun and Moon, and upon Earth?
A61550	Or can we know nothing beyond them?
A61550	P. All this proceeds upon the old Philosophy of Accidents: What if there be none at all?
A61550	P. And what do you infer from hence?
A61550	P. And what now would you infer from hence?
A61550	P. And what of all this?
A61550	P. And what then?
A61550	P. Are not the Divine Persons Infinite, as well as the Divine Nature?
A61550	P. But doth not Tertullian say afterwards, That the Bread was the figure of Christ''s body in the Old Testament?
A61550	P. But if the Three Persons be Coëternal, how is it possible to conceive there should not be three Eternals?
A61550	P. But was not Theodoret a Man of suspected Faith in ● he Church?
A61550	P. But what is it which makes one not to be the other, when they have the same common Nature?
A61550	P. But what say you to the Athanasian Creed; is not that repugnant to humane Reason?
A61550	P. But what say you to the damning all those who do not believe it, in the beginning and end of it?
A61550	P. But what will you do with it now you have it?
A61550	P. But where is it, that such Divine Worship is required to be given to Christ in Scripture?
A61550	P. Doth not Tertullian say, That it had not been the Figure, unless it had been the Truth?
A61550	P. Have not learned and acute Men doubted of the Divinity of Christ, as of Transubstantiation?
A61550	P. Have you any more that talk at this rate?
A61550	P. How can there be an Union possible, between two Beings infinitely distant from each other?
A61550	P. How do you make that appear?
A61550	P. How is that?
A61550	P. Is it not said elsewhere, That he that keepeth his Commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him?
A61550	P. May not God communicate his own Worship to him?
A61550	P. Methink you are very long upon this Argument; when shall we have done at this rate?
A61550	P. That is strange: Is not the Church often spoken of in Scripture?
A61550	P. That must be tried; What say you to Ignatius?
A61550	P. The Substance?
A61550	P. Then you think the Trinity can be proved from Scripture?
A61550	P. What a strange Question is this?
A61550	P. What are they?
A61550	P. What can we mean else?
A61550	P. What do you mean?
A61550	P. What doth all this signify, but that the Authority of the Church must determine whether there be two Natures, or two Persons in Christ?
A61550	P. What follows?
A61550	P. What have we been about all this while?
A61550	P. What have we to do with the Apollinarists?
A61550	P. What means all this ado before you come to the Point?
A61550	P. What of all that?
A61550	P. What say you then to the Mystery of the Incarnation?
A61550	P. What say you to Eusebius Emesenus?
A61550	P. What say you to St. Cyprian de Coena Domini?
A61550	P. What think you of the Acts of St. Andrew, and what he saith therein, about eating the Flesh of Christ?
A61550	P. What would you draw from hence?
A61550	P. Wherein I pray, did that Heresy consist?
A61550	P. Who doubts of that?
A61550	P. Who were they?
A61550	P. Why do you suspect me before I begin?
A61550	P. Why not?
A61550	P. Why not?
A61550	P. Why not?
A61550	P. Why not?
A61550	P. Why; what is the matter?
A61550	P. Will not you let a Man shew a little Jewish Learning upon occasion?
A61550	P. Yes; but how far is this from the business?
A61550	Sclater, Edward, 1623- 1699?
A61550	Suppose now we grant all this, that there is an incomprehensible Mystery in the Incarnation, what follows from thence?
A61550	That the substance of the Elements is gone: Where lies the Consequence?
A61550	Then why may not the greatest Body be within the least?
A61550	Then you have an extraordinary Tast, which goes to the very Substance?
A61550	This is the utmost your Cause will bear; but I pray tell me, Is there any such thing as a Repugnancy in the Nature of things or not?
A61550	VVho could possibly understand this of the old Creation?
A61550	Was it the Substance of Flesh you abstained from, or only the Accidents of it?
A61550	Was this Argument of the Apostle good or not?
A61550	Was this indeed your meaning?
A61550	Was this possible or not?
A61550	Were the Gentiles guilty of Idolatry in that respect, or not?
A61550	What Comfort will that be to you, when you are called to an account for your self?
A61550	What Texts do you mean?
A61550	What again?
A61550	What do you mean by Gods Instrument in the Creation?
A61550	What do you prove from this place?
A61550	What if you do not hear his Voice, do you not see him lying before you?
A61550	What if you had been to dispute with Nestorius and Eutyches?
A61550	What is it, I pray, to believe?
A61550	What is this It?
A61550	What is this to Transubstantiation?
A61550	What say you to a Pope, whom you account Head of the Church?
A61550	What then is to be said to such expressions of S. Chrysostom?
A61550	What then makes the same Impression on our Senses when the Substance is gone, as when it was there?
A61550	What then?
A61550	What think you now of the Proofs of the Trinity in Scripture?
A61550	What think you of making the time past not to be past?
A61550	What think you of the Manichees Doctrine, who held that Christ was in the Sun and Moon when he suffered on the Cross?
A61550	What think you of this?
A61550	What think you then of St. Augustin, who makes it impossible for a Body to be without its Dimensions and Extension of Parts?
A61550	Whence comes the certainty of the Substance, since your Senses can not discover it?
A61550	Wherein did this Inconsistency lie?
A61550	Wherein lies it?
A61550	Wherein lies it?
A61550	Wherein lies the nature of that which you call proper Divine Worship?
A61550	Which have run much in my Mind: For if the holy Spirit instruct us, what need is there of an Infallible Church?
A61550	Who doubts but there are other sorts of Unities, besides that of Nature?
A61550	Who then is to be judg what belongs to God, and what not?
A61550	Who was there that opposed things before they were thought of?
A61550	Why may not an Elephant be caught in a Mouse- trap, and a Rhinoceros be put into a Snuff- box?
A61550	Why not as to the Trinity, which to my understanding, is much plainer there, than the Churches Authority?
A61550	Why not then in two or more different Places; since a Body is as certainly confined, as to Place, as it is to Time?
A61550	Will you make the Power of God to change the Essential Properties of things, while the things themselves remain in their true Nature?
A61550	Will you promise to hold close to the Argument your self?
A61550	Will you prove that?
A61550	Will you undertake to explain that to me?
A61550	With Coccius or Bellarmin, you mean; but before you produce them, I pray tell me what you intend to prove by them?
A61550	Without any Reason?
A61550	Would you hence infer an Unity of Nature between Christ and Believers?
A61550	You put very odd Figures upon Tertullian: I appeal to any reasonable man, whether by the latter words he doth not explain the former?
A61550	but where is the Second?
A61550	that a Man''s Head, and Shoulders, and Arms, should be contained entire and distinct under the Nail of his little Finger?
A61550	the Homilies on Philogonius and the Cross?
A61550	there are such and such Accidents belong to every one of these; but our Senses are not so extraprdinary to discover the Substances under them?
A60941	1688?
A60941	9. representing Him to their thoughts, as an Old Man sitting in Heaven?
A60941	A Rational, a Sensitive, and a Vegetative?
A60941	Again, is Pardon of Sin an Essential Act of God''s Iustice?
A60941	Agreeably to all which, Seneca in the Preface to his Natural Questions, putting the Question, Quid est Deus?
A60941	And I would fain know, Whether this Man of Paradox, will affirm, That God Loves every Thing which he has a true Knowledge and Estimation of?
A60941	And St. Ierom in his Epistle to Damasus, Quis ore sacrilego Tres substantias praedicabit?
A60941	And after this tell us, That this gives no Account at all, how Three distinct Persons come to have but one Will and Energy, Power and Operation?
A60941	And are not these passages an Account of his Dealings and Operations in the Government of the World?
A60941	And besides, if a Mind, or Spirit, were not a Substance, what could it be else?
A60941	And can so Learned, and every way Excellent a Clergy bear this?
A60941	And does not this look mightily agreeable to all the Principles of Reason and Divinity?
A60941	And here if it should be asked, How they differ, and whether it be by any real distinction between the Persons?
A60941	And how can a Spirit incur directly into that?
A60941	And how does he acquit himself as to this?
A60941	And how does he prove this 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 to be Mutual Consciousness?
A60941	And if True, whether one Truth can any more obscure, perplex, and confound, than it can contradict another Truth?
A60941	And if so, must we not needs find a great difficulty in knowing it?
A60941	And if they derived this Perfection from their Souls, must not their Souls have been eminently perfect themselves, which rendred them so?
A60941	And in the next, assert also, that this Unity of Nature is proved by Unity of Energy and Operation?
A60941	And is not this close and profound reasoning?
A60941	And now can this Man pretend to speak these Things in the Person of one who thus Abhors, Abominates, and Detests them?
A60941	And now, is not this( think we) a most proper and fit posture for such as view and look into things very plain, obvious, and intelligible?
A60941	And now, what Relation does or can such an Act of Self- Consciousness imply in it?
A60941	And now, what does all this prove?
A60941	And that therefore the Laws will be very severe upon such as invade his Property?
A60941	And that we can have no Notion of Substance, but what implies in it something gross and material?
A60941	And then lastly for the School- men, who could have expected fewer of them also, than Ten, or Twenty?
A60941	And then, Where could be the Freedom of this Grace?
A60941	And to throw his Scurrility at High, and Low, at all About him, Above him, and Below him( if there be any such) at this insufferable rate?
A60941	And what of all this, I pray?
A60941	And what sence can there be in affirming, or saying, That they are but one distinct Infinite Mind?
A60941	And who denies this?
A60941	And will this bold over bearing Man, after all this, Claim their meaning to be the same with his?
A60941	And, What is the distinction between Essence, and Personality, and Subsistence?
A60941	And, are they so?
A60941	And, since Things were so in former Days, what hinders, but that in these latter Days likewise, the same, if not prevented, may happen again?
A60941	And, what is yet more, does it not more properly belong to any other of the Divine Acts, than to an Act of Knowledge?
A60941	Any more than he who says, That the Father is God, and the Son God, affirms them to be Two distinct Gods?
A60941	Are we able to comprehend them perfectly, and to the utmost of what, and how they are?
A60941	As, First, Whether the Soul, or Mind of Man be one Person, and the Man himself Another?
A60941	Basil, Theodoret, Epiphanius, with several more, all alledged in his behalf?
A60941	Between That, without which a Thing can not be, and that, which that Thing properly is?
A60941	But I demand of him, does Athanasius here speak of them as of Three Persons, or no?
A60941	But also, and much more properly to the Question, that enquires, What kind of Nature, or Essence such a thing is of?
A60941	But did his Adversary, Dr. Owen, ever speak so?
A60941	But does this inferr, That He is therefore a distinct Intelligent Mind, or Being from the Father?
A60941	But how then comes there to be only Three?
A60941	But may not others therefore, who are wiser, conceive more worthily of him, without laying aside that Scripture- expression?
A60941	But now if any one should ask me, What this Generation and Filiation, this Spiration and Procession are?
A60941	But perhaps it will be here said, if these Modes are not so many meer Nothings, or Entia Rationis, what order, or rank shall they be placed in?
A60941	But suppose, these unlucky Wits had used some new Terms, have they taught any new Faith about the Trinity in Unity, which the Church did not teach?
A60941	But then, I ask him, are not the Divine Operations so too?
A60941	But what is this to Spiritual Substances?
A60941	But what is this to our Author''s Purpose?
A60941	But what must we call them then?
A60941	But what shall we say to the Charge of Heresie,( in which St. Austin would have no Person, who is so charged to be silent?)
A60941	But where then may we find it?
A60941	But why do I speak of reconciling Contradictions?
A60941	But why do I speak of the Greek and Latine Fathers?
A60941	But why must the School- men bear all the blame of this?
A60941	But will this Man conclude, That where there is no Absurdity, there is therefore no Difficulty neither?
A60941	But you will say, From whom?
A60941	But you will say: Does not this infer Four Persons in the Godhead?
A60941	But, why, I pray?
A60941	Could you not as well have said, Let us change Saddles?
A60941	Do all, or any of the fore- mentioned Terms signifie Mutual Consciousness?
A60941	Do these Words speak of these Persons as distinguished, or do they not?
A60941	Does he,( I would fain know) in this speak his Judgment, or his Breeding?
A60941	For What Reason can be given of this?
A60941	For does he, or can he think to Live and Converse in the World upon these Terms?
A60941	For does not Unity of Nature, in these three distinct Persons prove this?
A60941	For has he lost his daring Polemick Pen?
A60941	For if we describe his Nature by any particular Attribute, or Perfection, and be thereupon asked, What that is?
A60941	For is it good arguing to conclude, That because a thing is actually thus or thus, it can not possibly be otherwise?
A60941	For must it be Nonsence not to own Contradictions?
A60941	For otherwise how come so many Socinian Pieces wrote against him to lie so long unanswered?
A60941	For the Nature and Condition of the Thing will not have it so, nor have the Ablest Divines ever thought it so,( for where then were the Mystery?)
A60941	For this is an Answer, not only to that Question, that enquires, Whether there be such a thing, or Essence, or no?
A60941	For will any one say, That the Soul can either Create or Generate the Person, or( to speak more plainly) the Man who is the Person?
A60941	For will he say, That the School- men do not grant such Modes to be in God, after he himself has done his poor utmost to confute them for holding it?
A60941	For will he, in the first place, assert, in the Three Divine Persons a Numerical Unity of Nature?
A60941	For will this Author put out the Eyes of his Reader?
A60941	For, Why not a Substance without Beginning, as well as Truth, or Wisdom, or Goodness, without a Beginning?
A60941	From Servetus, or Socinus,( from whom also it was borrowed) than from a Son of the Church, in a Book published by Licence and Authority?
A60941	How can Three distinct Persons have but One Numerical Substance?
A60941	How can three distinct Persons have but one Numerical Substance?
A60941	I Answer, What if we can not?
A60941	I tell him, This is not the Point in Controversie, Whether we can imagine it, or no?
A60941	If it be here now asked: Whether Subsistence, or Suppositality added to bare Nature, does not make a Composition?
A60941	In the mean time, why should any one who had reàd but a Page in Calvin, quote him for such a word as could not possibly drop from so Learned a Pen?
A60941	In what the Father''s placed the Unity in Trinity?
A60941	In which case, who must be the Person drawing them?
A60941	Indeed no more than that Reply of Hazael, Is thy Servant a Dog?
A60941	Is a Beast an Intelligent Substance?
A60941	Is it because this Author has got the Monopoly of them, and engrossed them all to himself?
A60941	Is there so much as one Tittle in the Fathers expressing, or necessarily implying, that it is so?
A60941	Is this( says he) Language becoming a Son of the Church of England?
A60941	It is so far from being a wonder to meet with any Thing[ whose Nature] we do not understand,& c. But is this Sence, or Grammar?
A60941	Master, What needs all these Words?
A60941	Must nothing be applyed to God, but what shall let us into the full knowledge of all that is difficult and mysterious in the Divine Nature?
A60941	Must we all take up in Scepticism, and acknowledge, that nothing is to be known?
A60941	Nay, Where could be this Grace it self?
A60941	Nay, on the contrary, does it not Exert it self in Infinite other Acts?
A60941	Now all this is very true; but how will our Author bring it to his purpose?
A60941	Now how shall we reconcile these blind Assertions, that so cruelly bu ● t and run their Heads against one another?
A60941	Or an Act of Sight such a Circulation?
A60941	Or can we think that the Fathers wrote Things without Words, as some do but too often write Words without Things?
A60941	Or charge them as the necessary Consequences of his Doctrine, without proving, or by any formed Argument so much as offering to prove them so?
A60941	Or did that Act consist in a Wise proportion of Rewards and Punishments, before there was any Act of the Creature to be Rewarded, or Punished?
A60941	Or does any Man say, Reach me that Book,[ who lies there] or that Chair[ who stands there?]
A60941	Or does he never reflect upon himself, nor consider, That though he does not, others assuredly will?
A60941	Or does the Son''s Relation to the Father consist in his being Conscious to himself of this Relation?
A60941	Or has he lost the use of his Hand?
A60941	Or has he run himself out of Breath?
A60941	Or must it be Heresie not to Subscribe to Tritheisme, as the best and most Orthodox Explication of the Article of the Trinity?
A60941	Or that this 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 in the whole Latitude and Compass of it extends no further?
A60941	Or the Language, they wrote in, too scanty to express their Speculations by?
A60941	Or use the Expressions here uttered by this Author?
A60941	Or what does it conclude for him?
A60941	Or will he say, That our Saviour meant the same Thing with himself, but was not so happy in expressing it?
A60941	Or, can a Beast be a Person, and yet not an Intelligent Substance, when he affirms, That they are Terms Reciprocal?
A60941	Or, that Self- Consciousness is the proper ground, or Reason of their distinction?
A60941	Ought it not more justly to have been expected from a Iew, or a Mahometan?
A60941	Pray what hurt have they done?
A60941	Quid enim insanius?
A60941	Quod si tenemus, cur non& magnitudinis suae,& bonitatis,& aeternitatis,& omnipotentiae suae Generator sit?
A60941	So that the Matter being in effect brought to this point, Whether He shall be too hard for the World, or the World for Him?
A60941	So that we see here what our Author asserts; But may we rely upon it, and hold him to his Word?
A60941	So that, that which removes one, must needs remove the other too?
A60941	That God created the Heavens and the Earth, and that therefore the Three Divine Persons are and must be one, only by an Unity of Mutual Consciousness?
A60941	That One infinite Spirit is Three distinct Infinite Spirits?
A60941	That as Generation and Filiation make two, so Spiration and Procession should make two more?
A60941	That, by which it is it self formally a Person, and that other, which by its Constituting it self a Person, is Constituted and caused by it?
A60941	The Question before him was, Whether the Three Divine Persons were Three Gods?
A60941	There is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost?
A60941	Was either the Thing it self( as I noted before) of such deep, or sublime Speculation, as not to be reached by them?
A60941	Was it the School, the University, or Gravel- Lane, that taught him this Language?
A60941	Well; and what then?
A60941	What can the meaning of this be?
A60941	What is God?
A60941	What is Intellectual Love( says this Author) but the true Knowledge, or Estimation of Things?
A60941	What is Iustice and Goodness but an equal Distribution of, or a true and wise Proportion of Rewards and Punishments?
A60941	What is perfect Power, but perfect Truth and Wisdom which can do whatsoever it knows?
A60941	What is the Distinction between Essence, and Personality, and Subsistence?
A60941	What is the Substance and Nature of God?
A60941	What then mean those Words of the Creed?
A60941	What then will that old Principle of Nature, 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉, serve for, but to tantalize and torment us?
A60941	What( says our Author) is the Substance, or Nature of God?
A60941	Whereupon I would again learn of him how many steps are necessary to explain Mutual- Conciousness?
A60941	Whether it be so in Infinite?
A60941	Whether or no Self- Consciousness be the Reason of Personality in Finite Persons?
A60941	Whether the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are not Mutually Conscious to one another of their Mutual In- existence in one another?
A60941	Why does he let St. Austin escape, from whom the Master of the Sentences borrowed most of his Distinctions and Subtleties?
A60941	Why, how then comes a Beast, in page 269. to be a Person?
A60941	Why, in the first place we must search and enquire, whether it be so, or no?
A60941	Why?
A60941	all drawn forth in Rank and File, to have fought his Battels?
A60941	and whether God revealed them for any other purpose than that he might be known and understood by them?
A60941	or, whether there be one between the first and the second?
A60941	the Words and Actions of Men, which they both Exist in, and Converse about?
A60953	11. tell us, That the Nature of a Spirit consists in Internal Vital Sensation?
A60953	And I demand of him whether he, or any Man living, can frame in his Mind such a Conception of it?
A60953	And I do here demand of him, Whether they are so or no?
A60953	And again, Can they be one before they are mutually conscious?
A60953	And again, I demand of him, Whether the Divine Nature and Persons consider''d all together are not one pure, simple, uncompounded Act or Being?
A60953	And again, Is not the Perfection of Nature a Natural Perfection?
A60953	And consequently, that all that can be concluded from them, is but Childish Sophistry?
A60953	And did not the bare Revelation of it sufficiently make out the Possibility of it to us, without any further Explication?
A60953	And here he asks the Question, What the Three Divine Persons in the Vnity of the Divine Essence are?
A60953	And here, I pray, what does the living Image do towards the setting forth of this?
A60953	And how does our Author counter- argue this?
A60953	And how does this Defender confute it?
A60953	And if so; what need( say I) can there be of a Resurrection?
A60953	And in the next place, whether they are not his own?
A60953	And indeed what other Kind of Union can it be?
A60953	And is not this, think we, a Demonstration?
A60953	And is not this, think we, a blessed Assertion, both in Philosophy and Divinity?
A60953	And may He so?
A60953	And now has not this Author, think we, shewn himself an 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉- Man indeed?
A60953	And now how does he clear himself of this Argument?
A60953	And now is any Man alive able to stand his ground against such an over- bearing Objection?
A60953	And now must all this be done by Terms unusual, inconvenient, and improper, and never used expresly upon this Subject( but hy Hereticks) before?
A60953	And now what is all this to the Principle of Consciousness?
A60953	And now, Reverend Sirs, what can my design be in thus applying my self to you?
A60953	And now, what Relation does, or can such an Act of Self- Consciousness imply in it?
A60953	And now, what has this Defender here to except against?
A60953	And therefore to that Question of his, Does the formal Reason of Personality make or limit the Number of Persons?
A60953	And therefore to that Senceless Question of his, Is God an Attribute?
A60953	And what Christian is concern''d to have any such Conception?
A60953	And what can this Man oppose to this Argument with the least shew or shaddow of Reason?
A60953	And what does he answer to this?
A60953	And what does his Metaphor of feeling mean, but something which is as much an Act of the Mind, as that, in the proper sence of it, is of the Body?
A60953	And what does this Defender answer to these?
A60953	And what has our Defender now to oppose to this Argument?
A60953	And what is that?
A60953	And what is that?
A60953	And what says Sir Scorn and Ignorance to this?
A60953	And what says he to this?
A60953	And what says our Author to the contrary?
A60953	And what says our Author to this?
A60953	And what then?
A60953	And what though it does not?
A60953	And what, I ask, is having a conscious Sensation, but actual Consciousness?
A60953	And where then, I pray, was the Defect of these material Images and Resemblances, as they were used and applied by the Fathers?
A60953	And will His Ignorance then Exact the Popular use of a Word of Phrase, according to the strictness of its litteral signification?
A60953	And will he grant This?
A60953	And will this Man argue from one sort of Union to another, between which there is no Cognation at all?
A60953	And will this Man now perswade the World, that Acts of Knowledge and Acts of Feeling or Sensation, signify the Principles of these several Acts?
A60953	And will this Man say, That any Thing can be essential to the Vnity of the one, which is not as essential to the Vnity of the other?
A60953	And will this Man say, That the proving of a Thing to be thus and thus, and the making it to be so, are the same?
A60953	Answer to all Enquiries à Priore, why or how a Thing comes to be essentially such or such, according to its respective Denomination?
A60953	Are not these Accounts( says he) much more chargeable with Tritheism, or Sabellianism, than the Account he gives of them by Three Minds or Spirits?
A60953	As if, for Instance, it should be asked, why or for what Reason a Beast is said to be a sensible Creature?
A60953	But after all, may I not ask him this short Question?
A60953	But an Act of mutual Consciousness is but an Act of Knowledge,& c. And what answer does he give to this?
A60953	But as for the Risibility he is so much concerned against, do not all the Schools of Philosophy make Risibility the Property of a man?
A60953	But can it then be part of a Compound which is not actually in being?
A60953	But can this Man make it appear, That any Philosopher and Divine does this?
A60953	But does he know what is and what is not an Argument?
A60953	But has this man''s Confidence so totally swallow''d up his Conscience, that he dares offer so notorious a Falshood to the World in print?
A60953	But he has not done with his Questions yet, but asks us, Whether to differ in Number, and to differ in Substance and Nature be the same thing?
A60953	But he now lays about him at an higher rate: Does this profound Philosopher( says He) think indeed that the Body either sins or suffers?
A60953	But how did he answer it?
A60953	But how does this affect the Animadverter, or how does it prove his Argument, which proceeds upon a different Major Terminus, to be false too?
A60953	But how in the name of all the Fairies( amongst whom he is no small Prince) comes he to be so fierce and furious against the Animadverter?
A60953	But is this fair dealing in disputation, or a just and true Representation of the Animadverter''s Assertion?
A60953	But must the Animadverter then pass for a Transcriber?
A60953	But now what is all this to the Vnion between the Soul and Body, which are vitally united as essential Parts of the whole Humane Person?
A60953	But now, under which of these capacities is it the Formal Reason of a Person?
A60953	But says He again, Does not St. Paul desire to be absent from the Body, and present with the Lord?
A60953	But the main question is, whether the 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 be sufficient to express this or no?
A60953	But then are not these modi subsistenti, Modes?
A60953	But was he never taught also the Difference between the Principium Quod, and the Principium Quo of an Action?
A60953	But was there ever such a Rhodomontade in words, so Big with Nothing, and without one grain of sense at the Bottom of them?
A60953	But what illogical confused stuff is this?
A60953	But what is this his boasted of 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 after all?
A60953	But what then would he have the Animadverter to prove?
A60953	But what would these Abject Creatures have?
A60953	But what wretched Inconsequences are these?
A60953	But whether it be the Formal Reason of it, or( in other words) that wherein the said Personality and Personal Vnity properly does consist?
A60953	But why do I dispute against such sottish Paradoxes, which all the Schools in Christendome would hiss, or rather spit at the Author of them for?
A60953	But why should I spend words in disputing a thing so obvious to any Man of Sence?
A60953	But why then does he stop here, without giving us the True Account what Substance positively is?
A60953	But will this man say, That these two Propositions[ Three can not be One] and[ Three Infinite Minds can not be One Infinite Mind] are the same?
A60953	But will this shameless Falsificator say so?
A60953	But you will say, do not all these great defects render a Man more Imperfect than he would be otherwise?
A60953	But you will say, what is it then that formally constitutes a Person?
A60953	But, in the mean time, what flat downright Railing is this?
A60953	But, says the Defender, are not Three Infinite Intelligent Persons as much Three Absolute simple Beings and Essences as Three Minds?
A60953	Col. 2. l. 30. on the other?
A60953	Concerning the Trinity, when it is the Subject of this Dispute alone which we are here concerned in?
A60953	Could there well be a grosser Blunder than to call that the Instrument of Rewards and Punishments, which is properly the subject of them?
A60953	Cur Pater Spiritus dicitur,& Filius Spiritus nuncupatur,& Spiritus Sanctus Spiritus appellatur?
A60953	Did he speak one tittle in preference of Oxford before Cambridge?
A60953	Does he mean( says He) That it is essential to the Soul to live in an earthly Body?
A60953	Does he not say it?
A60953	Does that which makes John a Person make him a Father?
A60953	Does the Man( says He) and his Person dye?
A60953	First, Whether it be contrary to Reason or no?
A60953	First, Whether the Eternal 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 before the Incarnation were a Compleat Being?
A60953	For are not the Sun and its light and splendor, as much Three, but not so much one as Three Conscious Minds?
A60953	For are the Father and the Son the Trinity without the Holy Ghost?
A60953	For are there not partial Distinctions, and modal distinctions, and accidental distinctions of some things?
A60953	For can a Person''s perceiving his own Distinction, properly make, or give him this Distinction?
A60953	For can an Accident Cogitare?
A60953	For did the Catholick Church ever pretend to any beyond the bare Knowledge of the Signification and Sense of the Terms in which it was revealed?
A60953	For do not the Divine Persons mutually know and mutually love one another?
A60953	For does the word feeling, in the proper use of it, signify any thing Spiritual?
A60953	For has he not declared, That his Notion of a Trinity solves all doubts and difficulties about it?
A60953	For how can the Divine Essence be conceived to make the Person?
A60953	For if he could do the former, what Reason can there be why he should not be able to do the latter?
A60953	For is an Account of a Thing by way of Allusion, and an Account analogous to a Definition, all one?
A60953	For says he very Learnedly, A Mystery is a Thing, and therefore how can it be derived from a Word?
A60953	For will he conclude the same of the Concrete, which he does of the Abstract?
A60953	For will he pretend to explain a Thing in it self obscure by another that is more obscure, and( which is worse) impossible besides?
A60953	For, are Men''s Words to be understood by their Meaning, or their Meaning by their Words?
A60953	For, has the Animadverter in his Book given the least occasion for this?
A60953	His third Question is, Can there be any other mutual in- being of Minds but by Mutual Consciousness?
A60953	I appeal, I say, to any Man of Judgment alive, whether this be not the greater and more inexplicable Difficulty of the Two?
A60953	I find and feel my self to be one Man, and to be distinct and separate from all others; but does this therefore make me to be so?
A60953	If not, what Idea of a Trinity can be drawn from these Two?
A60953	If( says he) a Natural Self- Conscious Sensation makes a Spirit one with it self, why should not a mutual Conscious Sensation Vnite Three into One?
A60953	In like manner the Divine Persons are said to be Three distinct Infinite Persons: but how?
A60953	Is a similitude or bare Resemblance of a Thing, and a proper Representation or Description of the Nature of that Thing the same?
A60953	Is not the Perfection of our Graces the perfection of humane Nature?
A60953	Is there not a wide difference between shewing what a Thing is like, and what it really and properly is?
A60953	Nam si Tu per singula Nomina Personarum Vnitum Nomen Spiritus ter designâsti, nunquid Tres Spiritus dicere oportebat?
A60953	Nay, and does he not repeat the same in several places of both his Books, as we have from several passages, cited out of them, before demonstrated?
A60953	No?
A60953	Now I ask this Man, Are the words here quoted by me his, or are they not?
A60953	Now I ask this Self- Contradictor first, whether any words can be more plain and expressive than these?
A60953	Now I would have this Acute Author tell me, How there can be Resemblances without Likeness, or Likeness without Resemblance?
A60953	Or does my being so consist in my feeling my self to be so?
A60953	Or lastly, That the Divine Persons are any more than only distinct?
A60953	Or lastly, can there, in simple Beings, be a Substantia Intelligens, that is, not also Incorporea?
A60953	Or that, Whether you put the Question concerning the one, or concerning the other, it is one and the same Question still?
A60953	Or what Term of it does he distinguish?
A60953	Or what can be the Essential Parts, if the Body and Soul are not so?
A60953	Or will he say that those Acts pass mutually between them by an External Impression upon each other?
A60953	Or, did he at all reflect upon his Advers ● ry, for being of that University, which he equally honours with the other?
A60953	Pray what hurt have these seemingly innocent words done?
A60953	Secondly, Whether the Humane Nature assumed by him were a Compleat or Incompleat Being?
A60953	See his Vindication, p. 66. l. 2. and 85. l. last, and where all difficulties are solved, can there remain any Vnexplained?
A60953	So that here we have an Explication of Unity in Trinity by Continuity of Sensation, but who shall explain to us this Explication it self?
A60953	Suppose then, say I, that Socrates and Xantippe should change Bodies too, What would be the Effect and Consequence of such a Change?
A60953	That God and infinite Intelligent Person are Terms convertible and commensurate?
A60953	That is to say, Three distinct Absolute Beings, Essences or Substances?
A60953	The Body of a Man can not extend further than its just Stature, but does the Body therefore consist in its Stature?
A60953	The second Question is, Can the Divine Persons be one before they are in one another?
A60953	This is the Argument, and what is the Defender''s, or rather the Dean''s Answer to it?
A60953	This is the Summ of the Argument; and what says this Defender to it?
A60953	This is the sum of the Argument, and what is this Defender''s Reply to it?
A60953	This, I say, is the Design of the Athanasian Creed, and does our Author''s Hypothesis fall in and agree with it?
A60953	Three Relations, Three Modes, Three Respects without some Being?
A60953	Thus the Animadverter: and where is now the mistake?
A60953	To which I answer, what if it does not?
A60953	To which he presently replied, What if they do starve, what is that to me?
A60953	Well, but if by this man''s own Confession his Words are so unjustifiable, how then does he think to bring himself off?
A60953	Well; but how does he prove The mutual Inexistence, or Indwelling of the Divine Persons, to be mutual Consciousness?
A60953	Well; but notwithstanding what has been argued against bare Sensation, may not the Unity of a Spirit consist in continuity of Sensation?
A60953	What Senceless Paradoxes are these?
A60953	What a Substance is?
A60953	What gross, thick, abominable Ignorance does this Man in this very one Expression betray?
A60953	What has he done, besides Animadverting upon a Publick Nusance, who had affronted and abused the whole World besides?
A60953	What is that to him?
A60953	What part of it does he deny?
A60953	What will this man make of him?
A60953	Where are the peculiar Graces, and lucky Hits of Fancy, that should recommend the foregoing Expressions to the Learned and Ingenious?
A60953	Where is the Wit and Smartness of Thought?
A60953	Where, having said, that a Trinity in Vnity is such a Distinction and such an Vnion( and why not Unity?)
A60953	Whether he any where affirms the Soul, while united to the Body to be the whole Person?
A60953	Whether the Three Divine Persons be Three distinct Minds or Spirits?
A60953	Which if it be so, Then, say I, where is the Hypostatical Union of Christ''s Person with the humane Nature?
A60953	Will he make him write Cases of Allegiance, and borrow his Arguments out of a Letter from a* Friend?
A60953	Will the Animadverter venture to make the Body part of the Personality of a Man?
A60953	Would they have the whole World lye down as often as this Man writes a Book?
A60953	Ye have taken away my Gods which I made, and what have I more?
A60953	and affirm, That for several Beings or Essences to be distinguished by the whole of what they are, is no more than barely to be distinguished?
A60953	and all Mankind suffer themselves to be aspersed as long as his Everlasting Diabetical Quill shall be disposed to Drop Pamphlets?
A60953	and before they know themselves to be one, and that even in the order of conceiving it?
A60953	and do not these Acts of Knowledge and Love both mutually proceed from them, and mutually terminate in them too?
A60953	and if so, Whether it be possible for the Mind of Man to form a Conception of one thing depending upon another but seoundùm Prius& Posterius?
A60953	and if they do 〈 ◊ 〉 whether they can or ought to speak of them in the same manner or no?
A60953	and must this pass for a meer Resemblance too?
A60953	and mutual Consciousness be the formal Cause or Reason of the Essential Unity and Identity of the Divine Persons in one and the same Nature?
A60953	and not Whether this Mutual Consciousness proves, infers, or declares them to be thus One?
A60953	and what is to confute an Assertion, or Position, and what is not?
A60953	and will this Ignoramus say, That Things thus distinguished are distinguished by the whole of what they are?
A60953	and withal deny the Form or Nature of any Thing to consist in the Property of it, as well as the Animadverter?
A60953	and withall, to prove and make good that signification yet further, by its derivation from another and more remote word?
A60953	and, Whether difference in Number prove a diversity of Nature too?
A60953	but One new heart amongst so many thousand Men?
A60953	by first setting his College all in a Flame, and then pretending to show us the Trinity by the Light of it?
A60953	or be either the Principium or Subjectum Quod of any Thought?
A60953	or can Substantia Cogitans be any other than Substantia Intelligens?
A60953	or can it be properly applied to God, if it does not?
A60953	or can there be any distinction in the conception, where there is not a proportionable Distinguishableness in the Object?
A60953	or does Res signify any Thing properly but either a Substance or an Accident?
A60953	or rather does not the whole Discourse seem wrote in the S ● raphick way and style of Iacob Behmen or George Fox?
A60953	or that he affirms this convertible Existence to be that which makes this formal Reason?
A60953	tells the Israelites, that God would give them[ a new heart]; would this wise Man, of the forenamed Society, cry out here, What?
A60953	the Divine Persons be one before they are mutually conscious, even in the order of conceiving it?
A60953	the Form of the Self- Conscious Being, which is the Rational Soul?
A60953	whither are we running?
A48890	( Same, what I beseech your Lordship?)
A48890	( and consequently Immortality) from its Operations?
A48890	And I crave leave to ask your Lordship, what Sense of them can your Lordship upon your Principles come to, but in the way of Notions?
A48890	And are we sent back again, from our Ideas to our Senses?
A48890	And do you, my Lord, see that with Maxims, you can convince them of that or any thing else?
A48890	And in the way of Ideas too?
A48890	And is not that Nature really in those who have the same essential Properties?
A48890	And is not the Nature really in those who have the essential Properties?
A48890	And is this a self- evident Idea of Light?
A48890	And is this the difference between your way of Certainty by Reason, and my way of Certainty by Ideas?
A48890	And pray, my Lord, do you in your way by Reason do so?
A48890	And pray, my Lord, does your Lordship do otherwise?
A48890	And then ask* Is not this the giving up the cause of Certainty?
A48890	And therefore I beg leave to ask your Lordship, Did you join me in Company with those, in whose Company you here say, I do not desire to be seen?
A48890	And what a fine pass are we come to, in your Lordship''s way, if a meer Arbitrary Idea must be taken into the only true Method of Certainty?
A48890	And what answer do I give to this?
A48890	And what is it which should keep them together, when Life is gone?
A48890	And what is that but to attain Certainty in such things where we could not otherwise do it?
A48890	And what must a Man do, who is to answer all such Objections about the use of Particles?
A48890	And what then would I think of one who should go about to invalidate this Argument?
A48890	And why should not this content your Lordship in reference to others as well as it does in reference to your self?
A48890	And with what Body do they come?
A48890	And would not you think you had reason to do so?
A48890	Answer to I know not what; to no meaning, i. e. to nothing?
A48890	As to Self- consciousness, your Lordship asks, † What is there like Self- consciousness in Matter?
A48890	As to the first of these, your Lordship would prove, that the Author of Christianity not Mysterious built upon my Ground, and how do you prove it?
A48890	But can not he who places Certainty in the perception of the agreement and disagreement of Ideas, supposes there is a God?
A48890	But farther, my Lord, what I beseech you has a self- evident Idea of Light to do here?
A48890	But how is it possible Sosia, that thou the real same, as thou sayst, should''st be at home, and here too?
A48890	But is it not fit I should first understand it, before I Answer it?
A48890	But now in your way of Reason, pray, wherein does the Certainty of this Proposition consist?
A48890	But now, what if my grounds of Certainty can give us no assurance as to these Things?
A48890	But pray, my Lord, why so far about?
A48890	But some Man will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what Body do they come?
A48890	But some Man will say, How are the dead raised up?
A48890	But supposing they never thought of it, must we put out our Eyes, and not see whatever they overlooked?
A48890	But these Words there, are not given as Answer to this Question, Why do I continue so unsatisfied?
A48890	But thus stand the immediate following words wherein you Lordship asks me,* But for what cause do I continue so unsatisfied?
A48890	But to keep something like an Argument going( for what will not that do?)
A48890	But to return to your Accusation here, which altogether stands thus:* Why in a Chapter of Reason are the other two Senses neglected?
A48890	But to your asking me, † Whether I can think your Lordship a Man of that little Sense?
A48890	But what is that particular Subsistence?
A48890	But which may do they carry it?
A48890	But your Lordship also adds, By the help of any intervening Ideas?
A48890	But, says your Lordship, Can Certainty be had with imperfect and obscure Ideas, and yet no Certainty be had by them?
A48890	But, when it is supposed, will that make good the above- mentioned Consequence?
A48890	Can I think your Lordship a Man of so little Sense to make that the reason of it?
A48890	Can it be thought now, that you forget this Promise, before you get half through your Examen?
A48890	Can not one that places Certainty in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of Ideas, be certain there is a God?
A48890	Can such a material Substance which was never united to the Body, be said to be sown in Corruption, and Weakness, and Dishonour?
A48890	Can these Words be understood of any other material Substance, but that Body in which these things were done?
A48890	Can you believe that to be true, which you are certain is not true?
A48890	Can you, my Lord, assent to this as a Matter of Faith, when you are already certain of the contrary by your way?
A48890	Canst thou teach me the Trick?
A48890	Catch at what I do not see?
A48890	Countryman, Where?
A48890	Demonstrations on both sides?
A48890	Do sensible Qualities carry a Corporeal Substance along with them?
A48890	Does God promise any thing to Mankind to be believed?
A48890	Does he any where say so?
A48890	Does your Lordship ascribe any greater Certainty than this to an Article of meer Faith?
A48890	Does your Lordship mean by it the Grain that is sown?
A48890	Farther, my Lord, give me leave to ask, what have we here to do with the ways of convincing others of what they do not know, or assent to?
A48890	For example, A Sinner has acted here in his Body an hundred Years; he is raised at the last day, but with what Body?
A48890	For who can doubt that the Knowledge or being Certain, that any two Things agree, consists in the Perception of their Agreement?
A48890	For would it not be pretty harsh to an English Ear, to say with Aristotle,* That Nature is a corporeal Substance, or a corporeal Substance is Nature?
A48890	For you ask me here, Is this all I intend, only to complain of them for making me a Party in the Controversie against the Trinity?
A48890	For you ask,* But suppose I have Ideas sufficient for Certainty, what is to be done then?
A48890	For your Lordship says, Can a different Substance be said to be in their Graves and come out of them?
A48890	From whence comes compleat Substance, or peculiar manner of Subsistence to make up the Idea of a Person?
A48890	Give me leave, I beseech you, to ask, are not those distinct real Natures, that are the Subjects of distinct essential Properties?
A48890	God has created a Substance; let it be, for Example, a solid extended Substance; is God bound to give it, besides Being, a Power of Action?
A48890	Has common use of our Language appropriated it to this Sense?
A48890	Has your Lordship any other or better Criterion to distinguish Certainty from Uncertainty?
A48890	Have these simple Ideas the Notion of a Substance in them?
A48890	Hereupon your Lordship tells me,* The Question now is, what this distinction is founded upon?
A48890	How are the dead Bodies raised, and with what Bodies do the dead Bodies come?
A48890	How can this be?
A48890	How does it appear that he thought so?
A48890	How does it appear, that he rejected them upon my Grounds?
A48890	How is it possible for a Man''s Mind to know, whether Ideas agree or disagree, if there be some parts of those Ideas obscure and confused?
A48890	How is this possible?
A48890	How so?
A48890	How then can we arrive to any Certainty in perceiving those Objects by their Ideas?
A48890	I answer, Can such a material Substance which was never laid in the Grave, be said to be sown,& c?
A48890	I beg leave to Answer in the same way by a Question, and whoever said or thought, that it was, or meant that it should be?
A48890	I crave leave to ask again; And does your Lordship?
A48890	I must ask you here again, what you mean by it?
A48890	I will only crave leave to ask, how you know that these are Maxims?
A48890	I would crave leave to ask your Lordship, were there ever in the World any Atheist or no?
A48890	If there were not, what need is there of raising a Question about the being of a God, when no Body Questions it?
A48890	If this should be so, what is this I beseech your Lordship to your shewing that I have no Criterion?
A48890	If you did join me with them, what is become of all the Satisfaction in the Point, which your Lordship has been at so much Pains about?
A48890	In the mean time, in answer to your other Question,* But is this fair and ingenuous dealing?
A48890	In the next place, give me leave to ask, where it is that I confess, That some Ideas are not self- evident?
A48890	In what Matter, I beseech your Lordship, if it be whether my Idea of Solidity be a true Idea, which is the Matter here in Question?
A48890	Is not this a rare way of Certainty?
A48890	Is not this a rare way of Certainty?
A48890	It seems its only, because we can not conceive it otherwise: What is this Conceiving?
A48890	Let it be so; what does your Lordship infer?
A48890	Let us grant your Lordship''s consequence to be good, what will follow from it?
A48890	Must I play at blind Man''s- buff?
A48890	Must I take them as a meer Complement, which is never to be interpreted rigorously, according to the precise meaning of the Words?
A48890	Must it consist of all the Particles of Matter, that have ever been vitally united to his Soul?
A48890	Nay, where it is, that I once mention any such thing as a self- evident Idea?
A48890	No, but they carry it with them: How so?
A48890	Now I crave leave to ask your Lordship, which of these Two is that little invisible seminal Plant, which your Lordship here speaks of?
A48890	Of what, I beseech your Lordship, did he assign my Grounds and in my Words?
A48890	Or can any one who admits of divine Revelation in the Case, doubt of one of them more than the other?
A48890	Or is a mis- citing my Words, and misrepresenting my Sense no Wrong?
A48890	Or must I presume to know your meaning when I do not?
A48890	Out of what Question, I beseech you, my Lord?
A48890	Prove what, I beseech you my Lord?
A48890	So that your Question,* Why in a Chapter of Reason are the other two Senses of the word Neglected?
A48890	Solidity likewise can not Exist without Space; but will any one from thence say, the Idea of Solidity and the Idea of Space are one and the same?
A48890	Sosia, But did he tell thee what became of the real common Nature of an Horse, that was in it, when the Fole died?
A48890	Suppose it be, That there are two Natures in one Person, the Question is, Whether you can assent to this as a Matter of Faith?
A48890	That Certainty was to be attained by comparing Ideas, was a Supposition of mine?
A48890	That I say, That if by an unintelligible new way of Construction, the word Them be applied to any Passages in my Book: What then?
A48890	That at the last Day, the dead shall be raised, without determining whether it shall be with the very same Bodies or no?
A48890	That this is so, I dare appeal to any Reader, should your Lordship press me again, as you do here, with all the force of these Words,* Say you so?
A48890	The Law of Disputing, whence had it it s so mighty a Sanction?
A48890	The Question is not, whether we can have Certainty by Ideas that are not clear and distinct?
A48890	The same says your Lordship, That he acted in, because St. Paul says he must receive the things done in his Body?
A48890	Thou tellst me Wonders of this same Subsistence, what I pray thee is it?
A48890	To prove something, you say, Suppose an Idea happen to be thought by some to be clear and distinct, and others should think the contrary to be so?
A48890	To shew that I have no such Criterion, your Lordship asks me two Questions, the first* is, How my Idea of Solidity comes to be clear and distinct?
A48890	What can we understand by this, but your Lordship''s great Complaisance and Moderation?
A48890	What does all this tend to?
A48890	What does my Idea of personal Identity do?
A48890	What does your Lordship infer from hence?
A48890	What else can it possibly consist in?
A48890	What great interest has any Truth of Religion in this, That I and another Man( be he who he will) make use of the same Grounds to different purposes?
A48890	What is the conclusion from hence?
A48890	What must I do now, my Lord?
A48890	What must I do now, to keep my Word and satisfie your Lordship?
A48890	What must I think now, my Lord, of these Words?
A48890	What the Soul was, to see whether from thence he could discover its Immortality?
A48890	What therefore must his Body at the Resurrection consist of?
A48890	What use does your Lordship make of this?
A48890	What, my Lord, is the difference here between your Lordship''s and my way in the Case?
A48890	When others treat me after the manner you have done, why should it not be enough to answer them after the same manner I have done your Lordship?
A48890	Where may it be Bought then?
A48890	Whereupon your Lordship bids me consider, whether this doth not a little affect the whole Article of the Resurrection?
A48890	Whether it be true or false, I am not now to enquire; but how it comes into this Idea of a Person?
A48890	Whether that Certainty be built upon the Agreement of Ideas, such as we have, or on whatever else your Lordship builds it?
A48890	Who can believe, that upon so slight an account, your Lordship should neglect your Design of writing against me?
A48890	Why are we sent to the antient Romans?
A48890	Why else is it objected to me, That I do not, if your Lordship does not place Certainty in Syllogism?
A48890	Why so?
A48890	Why therefore your Lordship asks me, and is the Certainty[ of the Souls being immaterial] dwindled into a Probability at last?
A48890	You add, What is the meaning of carrying with them a Supposition of a Substratum and a Substance?
A48890	You ask indeed,* whether I can imagine, That we have intuition into the Idea of Matter?
A48890	You ask,* How can my Idea of Liberty agree with the Idea that Bodies can operate only by Motion and Impulse?
A48890	You say* I allow assurance of Faith, God forbid I should do otherwise; but then you ask, Why not Certainty as well as Assurance?
A48890	Your Lordship asks in the next Paragraph,* How comes the Certainty of Faith so hard a Point with me?
A48890	Your Lordship asks,* Is not that a real Nature, that is the Subject of real Properties?
A48890	Your Lordship asks,* were they[ who saw our Saviour after his Resurrection] witnesses only of some material Substance then united to his Soul?
A48890	Your Lordship farther asks, † How can I clearly perceive the agreement or disagreement of Ideas, if I have not clear and distinct Ideas?
A48890	Your Lordship farther asks, † Is not that a real Nature, which is the Subject of real Properties?
A48890	Your Lordship in your Letter to me, does not say that we are to believe all that we find expressed in Scripture?
A48890	Your Lordship presses on with this farther Question,* What do these Ideas signify then?
A48890	Your Lordship says* the Academicks went upon Ideas, or Representations of things to their Minds; and pray, my Lord, does not your Lordship do so too?
A48890	Your Lordship says, † Have not all Mankind who have talked of matters of Faith allowed a Certainty of Faith, as well as a Certainty of Knowledge?
A48890	Your Lordship''s next Word is But, to which I am ready to reply, But what?
A48890	hath not this been made use of, as an Argument, not only by Christians, but by the wisest and greatest Men among the Heathens?
A48890	i. e. before you have formed the Ideas in your Mind, as well as you can, which those Words stand for?
A48890	i. e. if a Man be sent to his Senses for the Idea of Solidity?
A48890	if you do not?
A48890	is the same thing, as for you to ask, How comes the knowledge of Faith, or if you please, the knowledge of Believing to be so hard a Point with me?
A48890	only to Complain of them for making me a Party in the Controversie against the Trinity?
A48890	quum lingua Catonis& Enni Sermonem patrium ditaverit,& nova rerum Nomina protulerit?
A48890	than what, my Lord, I beseech you?
A48890	what you mean by these four Words?
A48890	you go near denying those Cafers to be Men, what else do these Words signifie?
A48890	— Ego cur acquirere pauca Si possum invideor?
A48890	† Are we not now in the true way to Certainty?
A48890	† But did you not offer to put us into a way of Certainty?
A61548	Am I bound to believe it or not?
A61548	And are not all the main Articles of the Christian Faith comprehended under it?
A61548	And doth not all this discover no good will to the Scriptures, at least, as they are received among us?
A61548	And from whence comes it?
A61548	And from whence comes such a Denomination?
A61548	And how can those who hold three Persons be Sabellians?
A61548	And how can three Persons be one Person, unless three incommunicable Properties may become one communicated Property to three Persons?
A61548	And how can we but divide the Substance, which we find in three distinct divided Persons?
A61548	And if there are three Persons which have the Divine Nature attributed to them; what must we do in this Case?
A61548	And is not this an admirable Way to bring us to a certainty of Reason?
A61548	And is not this great skill in these Matters, to make such a Parallel between three Persons in the Godhead, and Peter, Iames and Iohn?
A61548	And is not this very good Authority among us?
A61548	And is this all indeed, that is to be said for the being of Substance, that we accustom our selves to suppose a Substratum?
A61548	And is this indeed the great Secret which this bold Man, as they call him, hath discover''d?
A61548	And now let the World judge, how wisely they have interpreted both S. Iohn, and his Commentator Grotius?
A61548	And now what Reason can there be, that any such late Copies should be prefer''d before those which were used by the Greek Fathers?
A61548	And now what do these Men do?
A61548	And so Heaven and Earth are called to bear Witness against obstinate Sinners: May men therefore be baptized in the name of God and his Creatures?
A61548	And that he is the Word, and God of God, from Theophilus Antiochenus?
A61548	And to make his Apostles set up the Worship of a Creature, when their design was to take away the Worship of all such, who by Nature are not Gods?
A61548	And to what purpose then are they brought?
A61548	And upon his bringing Erasmus to prove that it was not in S. Cyprian, S. Hilary, and S. Chrysostome, he cries out, Where is Sincerity?
A61548	And what Answer do they give to this?
A61548	And what Answer doth S. Ambrose give to this?
A61548	And what answer do they give to this?
A61548	And what certainty can we have that he hath not done it?
A61548	And what defence have they since made for themselves?
A61548	And what follows from hence, but that the relative Property is the Foundation of the Personality?
A61548	And what follows?
A61548	And what follows?
A61548	And what greater argument can there be, that it was then the general sense of the Christian Church?
A61548	And what is this, but to own two distinct Substances?
A61548	And what must they think of our Saviour the mean time, who knew the Iews understood him quite otherwise, and would not undeceive them?
A61548	And what saith he to this purpose?
A61548	And what say our Vnitarians to it?
A61548	And what say our Vnitarians to this?
A61548	And what say our Vnitarians to this?
A61548	And what then?
A61548	And what then?
A61548	And what then?
A61548	And what then?
A61548	And wherein is this different, from what all men of Understanding have said?
A61548	And who are these Dominions and Powers?
A61548	Are not then( without Trifling and Fooling) these Real Essences Mysteries to them?
A61548	Are not these very good Christians the mean while?
A61548	Are not three Substances and but one a Contradiction?
A61548	Are they not three Gods?
A61548	Are they resolved to set up Deism among us, and in order thereto, to undermine the authority of the New Testament?
A61548	As of divine Authority?
A61548	As though he allow''d more Gods than one in Number?
A61548	As to the Essence?
A61548	But Eusebius doth not use Hegesippus his words, but his own in that place; and withal, how doth it appear that Hegesippus himself was an Ebionite?
A61548	But after all, why do we assert three Persons in the Godhead?
A61548	But by no means, that the Person of the Father is nothing but the relative Property?
A61548	But can any thing of this Nature be charged upon one, who hath not only written in Defence of it, but speaks of it with the highest Veneration?
A61548	But can one whole entire indivisible Substance be actually divided into three Substances?
A61548	But can these Men of Sense and Reason think, that the Point in Controversie ever was, whether in Numbers, One could be Three, or Three One?
A61548	But can you have a full and evident Perception of a thing, so as to difference it from all others, when you grant it to be Incomprehensible?
A61548	But comes it from a good hand?
A61548	But did they mean three distinct Subsistences, or only one Subsistence sustaining the Names, or Appearances, or Manifestations of three Persons?
A61548	But do these assert, that there is but one subsisting Person, and three only in Name?
A61548	But doth any one imagine, that because Iohn Baptist did enter his Disciples by Baptism, therefore they must believe him to be God?
A61548	But doth he not say, That he hath a Legitimate and proper Substance of his own begotten Nature from God, the Father?
A61548	But doth it follow that they are guilty of Heresie?
A61548	But he will Demonstrate something instead of it?
A61548	But how I pray doth this appear?
A61548	But how came the Preface to be curtail''d in the Ebionite Gospel?
A61548	But how can I comprehend this Attribute of Eternity?
A61548	But how can we but divide the Substance which we see in three distinct divided Persons?
A61548	But how comes Christ to assume that to himself which belong''d to the Word?
A61548	But how comes he to take no notice of this Difference of the Clermont Copy?
A61548	But how comes the general Idea of Substance, to be framed in our Minds?
A61548	But how do our simple Ideas help us out in this Matter?
A61548	But how do they make out this gross Stupidity of theirs?
A61548	But how doth he apply these things to the divine Nature?
A61548	But how doth he make this out?
A61548	But how doth it appear that we have any Power to comprehend what is infinite?
A61548	But how doth it appear, that Beza''s Clermont Copy was the very same which Morinus had?
A61548	But how doth it appear, that he brought in any new Doctrine?
A61548	But how doth it appear, that the Word Mystery is always used in that Sense?
A61548	But how doth that appear?
A61548	But how doth the other Antagonist escape?
A61548	But how far?
A61548	But how if any one Person were left out?
A61548	But how is it possible to understand this?
A61548	But how is this clear''d by the other Party?
A61548	But how then can there be but one individual Essence in all three?
A61548	But how then comes it not to make a distinct Essence, as it makes distinct Persons, by being communicated?
A61548	But how then?
A61548	But how?
A61548	But how?
A61548	But how?
A61548	But if he had so meant it, how could he have expressed it otherwise?
A61548	But if he was for ever, he must be from himself, and what Notion, or Conception can we have in our Minds concerning it?
A61548	But if that be not taken as an Evidence of his being the eternal Son of God, how doth this prove him above Angels?
A61548	But if the Christian Interpreters were such Fools; what think they of the Deists, whom they seem to have a better opinion of, as to their Wisdom?
A61548	But may not Christians have such doubts in their minds?
A61548	But may not each Person have a distinct Essence belonging to him, as we see it is among Men?
A61548	But may not the fame Essence be divided?
A61548	But saith S. Augustin, The Caviller will ask, if there be Three, what Three are they?
A61548	But saith he, Will it not hence follow, that as these are two Men, so the Father and Son in the Divine Essence must be two Gods?
A61548	But the Question is whether the Fathers used it in that sense, so as to imply a difference of Individuals in the same common Essence?
A61548	But they leave out what he saith, and put in what he doth not say; is not this interpreting like Wise men?
A61548	But this is said to be a Contradiction; so it was in the other case and not allow''d then and why should it be otherwise in this?
A61548	But this worthy Author produces other Reasons, which Sandius himself laughs at, and despises?
A61548	But to what purpose?
A61548	But were not the Iews to understand it in the Sense it was known among them?
A61548	But what Bias was it, which made him write with that Strength and Iudgment against their Opinions?
A61548	But what Reason doth he give for it?
A61548	But what are these very strong and weighty Reasons?
A61548	But what consequence do they draw from hence?
A61548	But what do they say to the Old Paraphrases, whereon the main Weight as to this matter lies?
A61548	But what is it which makes the Vnion indissoluble?
A61548	But what is it?
A61548	But what is this Distinction founded upon?
A61548	But what is this to the first Christians of the Church of Ierusalem?
A61548	But what is to know?
A61548	But what reason do they give for it?
A61548	But what reason do they give for such a forced and unusual Sense, besides the avoiding the difficulty of having the Name of God given here to Christ?
A61548	But what saith Grotius himself?
A61548	But what saith S. Augustin to this?
A61548	But what say our Wise Interpreters to this?
A61548	But what then do they think of these passages in his Conferences with the Iews?
A61548	But when you have reckon''d them what is it you have been Counting?
A61548	But whence or how?
A61548	But where doth Grotius say any thing like this?
A61548	But where doth S. Augustin give any such Account of it?
A61548	But where else are these honest, conscientious Deists to be found?
A61548	But where is this said?
A61548	But wherein is it that Eusebius blames them?
A61548	But wherein lies it?
A61548	But wherein lies this Impossibility?
A61548	But wherein then lies the difference in point of Reason?
A61548	But who is to set these Bounds but themselves in all Acts of relative Worship, because they depend upon the intention of the Persons?
A61548	But who made them subject to him?
A61548	But who was this Arian Bishop, and these Campenses?
A61548	But why do we call them Persons, when that Term is not found in Scripture, and is of a doubtful Sense?
A61548	But why must they confound the Persons, if there be but one Essence?
A61548	But will not this overthrow the distinction of Persons and run us into Sabellianism?
A61548	But, if our Reason depend upon our clear and distinct Idea''s; how is this possible?
A61548	By dividing the Substance?
A61548	Can the communicating the divine Essence by the Father to the Son, be called a Name, or a Mode, or a Respect only?
A61548	Can we be certain without any Foundation of Reason?
A61548	Can we learn from them, the difference of Nature and Person?
A61548	Can we suppose them Guilty of such stupidity to lose their Lives, for not giving Divine Honour to Creatures, and at the same time to do it themselves?
A61548	Did God make the Earth and all the living Creatures in it, when he made Man Lord over them?
A61548	Did ever N ● etus or Sabellius, or any of their Followers speak after this manner?
A61548	Did he die to reform them, as well as Mankind?
A61548	Did they all interpret the Scriptures like Fools, and not like Wise Men?
A61548	Did they mean no more, but as any Good man is?
A61548	Do not you comprehend that it is incomprehensible?
A61548	Do the others who maintain a Trinity deny this?
A61548	Do they hope ever to convince Men at this rate of wise interpreting?
A61548	Do they suppose the divine Nature capable of such Division and Separation by Individuals, as human Nature is?
A61548	Do they think there is no difference between an infinitely perfect Being, and such finite limited Creatures as Individuals among Men are?
A61548	Doth Marcion hold this Trinity?
A61548	Doth Origen say all the Iewish Christians there were such?
A61548	Doth he not say, the Arian Bishop, and the Campenses put him upon it?
A61548	Doth he own such a Community of Nature, and Distinction of Individuals there?
A61548	Doth he say they borrowed the Form of Baptism from thence?
A61548	Doth it therefore follow, that there are no Doctrines in the Gospel above the reach and comprehension of our Reason?
A61548	Doth not S. Ambrose say, as Curcellaeus quotes him, That the Father and Son are not two Gods, because all men are said to be of one Substance?
A61548	Doth not by whom all things were created in Heaven and Earth imply, that Heaven and Earth were created by him?
A61548	Doth not this look like a design to furnish the Deists with such arguments as they could meet with against it?
A61548	Doth this prove such a difference, as is among Individuals of the same kind among men?
A61548	Doth this reach the Nature of the thing, or only the manner of our Conception?
A61548	Ecce inquit tres dixisti, sed quid tres exprime?
A61548	Especially, when they say, That S. Iohn doth not oppose them Why then are these Arguments produced against his Gospel?
A61548	Filium quem dicitis, Deum dicitis?
A61548	For I appeal to the common Sense of mankind, whether we can be said to Comprehend that, which we can have no adequate Idea of?
A61548	For according to this Sense, how comes a divine Attribute to be called the Son of Man?
A61548	For the question upon the Creed is, Whether the Substance can be divided?
A61548	For unto which of the Angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?
A61548	For what is it makes the second Sun to be a true Sun, but having the same Real Essence with the first?
A61548	For what is the old or first Creation, but the making the World, and creating all things in Heaven and Earth?
A61548	For what reason?
A61548	For, if he could have no Cause, what could we think of his being Eternal?
A61548	For, they say, That he held, that as to this question, How many Gods?
A61548	From what evidence?
A61548	Grant he was so, yet how doth it appear that all the Iewish Christians were at that time Ebionites or Cerinthians?
A61548	Had all men lost their Senses in Theodoret''s time?
A61548	Had he no more skill in Arithmetick than to say there are Three and yet but One?
A61548	Have the Brutes and Trinitarians learnt Arithmetick together?
A61548	Have they any new Books of Scripture to judge by?
A61548	Have we not now a very comfortable account of the Canon of the New Testament from these ancient Vnitarians?
A61548	He answers, Why not, since we call Body and Soul by the Name of the Man?
A61548	He granted that they were one Essence, one Nature, one Substance: but how?
A61548	He grants to Praxeas, that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one, but how?
A61548	He pretends to Demonstrate; but what I pray?
A61548	How are the Angels created by him and for him?
A61548	How can that be said to be the Son of God begotten of the Father, without Division, before all Worlds, as he quotes it from Iustin Martyr?
A61548	How can that be?
A61548	How can the Substance be distinct, if it be the very same; and the Son subsist in that Substance of which he was begotten?
A61548	How can these things consist?
A61548	How can this be consistent with deducing our Certainty of Knowledge from clear and simple Ideas?
A61548	How can this distinction be?
A61548	How come the Mysteries of Faith to require more Knowledge than the Nature of Man is capable of?
A61548	How could the Son of Man be said to ascend thither, where a divine Attribute was before?
A61548	How could this be, if all the Christians were out of his reach, then being setled about Pella?
A61548	How doth that appear?
A61548	How doth that appear?
A61548	How doth this appear to be very probable?
A61548	How is it possible for Three to be but One?
A61548	How is this possible, if a Person doth suppose some peculiar Property, which must distinguish him from all others?
A61548	How so?
A61548	How so?
A61548	How then can our Vnitarians pretend, That the Ante- Nicene Fathers did not alledge the Form of Baptism to prove the Trinity?
A61548	How then can we know, that of which we can have no adequate Idea?
A61548	How then is it possible to understand S. Basil of more Gods than one in number?
A61548	I allow he Reason to be very good, but the Question I ask is, whether this Argument be from the clear and distinct Idea or not?
A61548	I desire to know, Whether the Adoration of such were Idolatry or not?
A61548	If it be said to be the same Specifick Nature; then how comes that which is in it self capable of Division to make an indissoluble Vnion?
A61548	If it be, is it the same individual Essence, or not?
A61548	If it extends to all the other things, doth it exclude this, which is the first mention''d?
A61548	If it were necessary to be believed, why is it not more plainly revealed?
A61548	If only some parts of Matter have a power of Thinking, how comes so great a difference in the Properties of the same Matter?
A61548	If the same individual Essence makes the inseparable Union, what is it, which makes the difference of individuals?
A61548	If their arguments are mean and trifling and merely precarious, why are they not slighted and answered by such as pretend to be Christians?
A61548	If they are false, why do they not answer them?
A61548	If they are true, why do they not affirm them?
A61548	If they do understand them, why do they say, They do not, nor can not?
A61548	In the former Testimony, the authority of the Vulgar Latin was made use of: and why, is it rejected here?
A61548	Interrogant enim nos aliquando Infideles,& dicunt, Patrem quem dicitis, Deum dicitis?
A61548	Into the Father?
A61548	Into the Holy Ghost?
A61548	Into the Son?
A61548	Is it like wise Men, to go upon such grounds as will justifie both Pagan and Popish Idolatry?
A61548	Is it not rather exposing and ridiculing them?
A61548	Is it not to have adequate Ideas of the things we know?
A61548	Is it possible for Men that live in our Age to give such an account as this of the Growth of Deism and Atheism among us?
A61548	Is it the Vnity of the Essence or not?
A61548	Is it the attributing a general Name to them?
A61548	Is not the like Equity to be shew ● d in another though different Explication?
A61548	Is not this Subtle and deep Reasoning?
A61548	Is not this a fine turn?
A61548	Is not this a rare Specimen of Wise interpreting, and Fair dealing with so considerable a Person, and so well known, as Grotius?
A61548	Is not this a rare way of fixing the Boundaries of Faith and Reason?
A61548	Is not this a very strong and weighty Reason?
A61548	Is not this doing great Honour to our Saviour?
A61548	Is not this fair dealing with such a Man as S. Basil, to represent his Sense quite otherwise than it is?
A61548	Is not this interpreting like wise Men indeed?
A61548	Is that Custom grounded upon true Reason or not?
A61548	Is the divine Essence but a mere Name, or a different respect only to Mankind?
A61548	Is this Wise interpreting?
A61548	Is this a sufficient reason or not?
A61548	Is this by Abstracting and inlarging simple Ideas?
A61548	Is this interpreting Scripture like Wise men, to deny Divine Worship to be given to our Saviour when the Scripture so plainly requires it?
A61548	Is this interpreting Scripture like wise Men, to take advantage of all Omissions in Copies, when those which are entire ought to be preferr''d?
A61548	Is this interpreting the Scriptures like wise Men?
A61548	Is this right?
A61548	Is this sufficient to charge such a Person with the Sabellian Heresy, which he utterly disowns?
A61548	Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men, to make our Saviour''s meaning to be expressly contrary to his Words?
A61548	It is easie to guess whom these kind Words were intended for: And are not these very modest and civil Expressions?
A61548	It''s very true; but how doth this prove that there is a God?
A61548	Let the Case be now put as to the Trinity; do you believe the Doctrine of it, as of Divine Revelation?
A61548	Must not this be a very learned Critick who could mention S. Ierom, as Translator of S. Matthews Gospel into Greek?
A61548	Must we cast off the Vnity of the Divine Essence?
A61548	Must we quit Christ''s being the Messias, because the Jews deny it?
A61548	Must we reject those Scriptures which attribute Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost, as well as to the Father?
A61548	Must we renounce the Christian Doctrine to please the Jews and Mahometans?
A61548	No, Are they not three Almighties?
A61548	No, they may say, but ye who hold three Persons must think so: For what reason?
A61548	Non tres omnipotentes?
A61548	Now if Christ were taken up into Heaven, as Moses was into the Mount, why was it not made publick at that time?
A61548	Now if both Parties mean what they say, where lies the difference?
A61548	Now what Prolation can there be of a meer Attribute?
A61548	Now what was this Doctrine of Noetus?
A61548	Now what was this unheard of Doctrine of Noetus?
A61548	Now wherein doth this differ from the present Hypothesis?
A61548	Now, what is the Subject in this case?
A61548	Now, what saith the Vnitarian to this, who pretended to Answer me?
A61548	Number, saith he again, belongs to Quantity, and Quantity to Bodies, but what relation have these to God, but as he is the Maker of them?
A61548	Nunc mihi Calumniator respondeat, quid ergo tres?
A61548	Of mere Names or Cyphers, or of one God and two Creatures joyned in the same Form of words, as our Vnitarians understand it?
A61548	Of mere Names or Energies?
A61548	Of what?
A61548	One God the Father, and one God the Son; how can this be, and yet not two Gods?
A61548	Or Paulus Alciatus, who from a Unitarian turned Mahometan?
A61548	Or as other Hereticks, three Principles or three Gods?
A61548	Or doth our Reason give us true Notions of things, without these Idea''s?
A61548	Or rather was Man said to create them, because he was made their Head?
A61548	Or the suffering of Christ, because the Mahometans think it inconsistent with his Honour?
A61548	Or were they all turned Ebionites then?
A61548	Peter, and Iames, and Iohn, are all true and real Men; but what is it which makes them so?
A61548	Quare hoc non est ita ibi?
A61548	Quid sunt isti tres?
A61548	Respondemus Deum Spiritum Sanctum quem dicitis, Deum dicitis?
A61548	St. Augustin mentions it as such, when he saith, the Infidels sometimes ask us, what do you call the Father?
A61548	That the Father and Son are divided from each other, as they were?
A61548	The Israelites were baptized unto Moses; but how?
A61548	The Man Christ Iesus?
A61548	The Point in hand?
A61548	The question is, Whether this be interpreting those Scriptures which speak of the Honour and Worship due to Christ, like wise Men?
A61548	The question is, whether the distinct Properties of the Persons do imply a Division of the Substance?
A61548	Then they were asked, Why they used those terms?
A61548	They know there are such by the Ideas of their Properties, but know nothing of their Real Essence; and yet they will not allow them to be Mysteries?
A61548	They may tell them, as they do us that they can have no Ideas, no clear and distinct Perceptions of immaterial Substances?
A61548	Very true: But can you have a clear and distinct Idea of what you can not comprehend?
A61548	Very true; but is all this contained in the simple Idea of these Operations?
A61548	Was he not bound to undeceive them, when he knew they did so grossly mis- understand him, if he knew himself to be a meer Man at the same time?
A61548	Was it not by force of Arms and the Prevalency of the Saracen and Turkish Empire?
A61548	Was not his whole design in that Book to prove three distinct Persons of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and yet but One God?
A61548	Was the Morocco Ambassador one of them?
A61548	Was this mystical Sense primarily intended or not?
A61548	We can not reason without clear Ideas, and yet we may be certain without them: Can we be certain without Reason?
A61548	Well, but what is this creating or disposing things into a new order?
A61548	Were ever wise Men driven to such miserable Shifts?
A61548	Were not those Iewish Christians?
A61548	What Christian Ingenuity is here?
A61548	What Proof, what Evidence, what credible Witnesses of it, as there were of his Transfiguration, Resurrection and Ascension?
A61548	What Trinity do they mean?
A61548	What a false and spiteful Inference is this?
A61548	What an honest- hearted Deist do they make that Impostor Mahomet?
A61548	What another sort of character is this from that of the greatest, and in their opinion the best of our Clergy?
A61548	What answer do they give in this case?
A61548	What are these Three?
A61548	What can be the meaning of this if he did not take it for granted, that the Christian Church embraced the Doctrine of the Trinity in Baptism?
A61548	What can satisfie such men, who are content with such an answer?
A61548	What can this prove, but that we may call God and his Creatures to be Witnesses together of the same thing?
A61548	What could they mean, if they did not believe them to have the same Divine Nature?
A61548	What disposition of Matter is required to thinking?
A61548	What do these men mean by such suggestions as these?
A61548	What do these men mean, to charge one who goes upon these grounds with Sabellianism?
A61548	What if S. Paul name the elect Angels in a solemn Obtestation to Timothy, together with God, and the Lord Iesus Christ?
A61548	What is now become of the general Consent of the Christian Church, East and West?
A61548	What is that bare Essence without the Powers and Properties belonging to it?
A61548	What is that?
A61548	What is the meaning of this, but that we can not have an adequate Idea of any thing?
A61548	What is the meaning of this?
A61548	What must these men think the Christian Church hath been made up of all this while?
A61548	What number of Atheists is there, upon any other account than from a looseness of Thinking and Living?
A61548	What say our Vnitarians to this?
A61548	What say our Wise Interpreters to all this?
A61548	What should make Beza pass it over here?
A61548	What strange way of arguing would this have been?
A61548	What that is, whereby we perceive the difference of Individuals?
A61548	What that is, which really makes two Beings of the same kind to be different from each other?
A61548	What the Holy Ghost?
A61548	What the Son?
A61548	What then would they say of the rest?
A61548	What then?
A61548	What would Iulian have given for such a Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn?
A61548	What would these wise Interpreters have?
A61548	What, and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?
A61548	What, if Men without Biass of Interest, or Education think ours the more proper and agreeable Sense?
A61548	What, nothing but good Words to him?
A61548	What?
A61548	When God is said to be an incomprehensible Being; who before them did understand the meaning to be, That we can not comprehend that there is a God?
A61548	Where is the least Intimation given, that he look''d on the divine Persons as Modes and Respects only?
A61548	Whether a specifick divine Nature be not inconsistent with the absolute Perfection, and necessary Existence which belongs to it?
A61548	Whether it was accounted a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction, where Persons were not sway''d by Force and Interest?
A61548	Whether their Doctrine about the Trinity or ours, be more agreeable to the sense of Scripture and Antiquity?
A61548	Whether there be any ground of common reason, on which it can be justly charged with Nonsense, Impossibilities and Contradiction?
A61548	Whether there can be more Individuals, where there is no Dissimilitude, and can be no Division or Separation?
A61548	Which arise from the shallowness of Mens Capacities, and not from the repugnancy of Things: and who can help Mens Understandings?
A61548	Who are they?
A61548	Who are those Historians who give this character of him?
A61548	Who denies it?
A61548	Who denies, that one Person may have different Respects, and yet be but one Person subsisting?
A61548	Why are these strong Reasons of learned Criticks mentioned, but to raise Doubts in Peoples minds about them?
A61548	Why are they not named, that their authority might be examin''d?
A61548	Why did he not conceal it,( as some would have done) and only represent to the Emperours, the fair and plausible part of Christianity?
A61548	Why not the time and place mention''d in Scripture, as well as of his Fasting and Temptation?
A61548	Why then should these clear and simple Ideas be made the sole Foundation of Reason?
A61548	Will they make this a Contradiction too?
A61548	Will they say, the Holy Ghost was there added for the sake of Montanus his Paraclete?
A61548	Will you hold to this Principle?
A61548	and if these are real Mysteries in Nature, why may not the same term be used for Matters of Faith?
A61548	and of the Commentators upon this Creed?
A61548	and to what end?
A61548	but doth my argument proceed upon that, or upon the not having a distinct and clear Idea of a Spirit?
A61548	in the Idea of our Selves?
A61548	no Cerinthians among them?
A61548	non tres Dii?
A61548	none that had common sense, and could tell the difference between One and Three?
A61548	or honest and fair dealing?
A61548	were there no Men among them but the Vnitarians?
A61548	why no Appearance of the Glory to satisfie Mankind of the truth of it?
A61548	why no Witnesses?