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 |
|---|---|
| A44017 | Again, If a Captain will place his hundred Men in a square Form, must not he take the Root of 100 to make a Rank or File? |
| A44017 | And are not those 10 Men? |
| A44017 | If this be an Absurdity, have we not then an Argument in Nature to prove that God had a beginning? |
| A44017 | Is there any Number so bare, as by it we are not to conceive or consider any thing numbred? |
| A44017 | Or by ten Nothings understands he Bare 10? |
| 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? |
| A67377 | And if Children be thus capable, or their Parents for them, of entering thus into Covenant with God; why not of receiving the Seal of such Covenant? |
| A67377 | And why not that of Baptism now, as well as of Circumcision before? |
| A67377 | Or, the Academick must be a Philosopher, or Learned Man, before he may be admitted in the University? |
| A67377 | Or, the Citizen a skilful Merchant, before he may be bound Apprentice? |
| A67377 | Would any Man now think, that the Boy must first be a Latinist, before he may be taken into the School? |
| A67384 | And Secondly, Why it weighs alike at several depths in Water? |
| A67384 | And particularly, Whether water in a Pond, artificially contrived on the top of a Tower, be in its own Place? |
| A67384 | But if these Expedients of his do not serve; What is the Reason( you will ask) that the Man under Water, feels not the Weight of it? |
| A67384 | But why? |
| A67384 | Next, I would ask; What is meant by the Waters own Place? |
| A67384 | Where he attempts the account of two Phaenomena: First, Why it weighs less in Water than in Air? |
| A60536 | But is it not grateful to every Gentleman, who is ennobled with such a Soul as yours, to know the divine Harmony of the pleasure he enjoys? |
| A60536 | Is it not the duty and Felicity of a Rational Being, to consider how the whole System of the World is framed in Consort? |
| 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? |
| A67406 | ( That God, who at first made Man out of the Dust of the Earth, should, out of the same Dust, Recover a Body which once had been?) |
| A67406 | And what St. Paul there says, King Agrippa, believest thou the Prophets? |
| A67406 | As to himself, he had no more to say, but Why should it be thought a thing Incredible, that God should Raise the Dead? |
| A67406 | But what must we then say? |
| A67406 | But why then( you will ask) doth St. Paul say nothing of it in this place, where he speaks so copiously of the Resurrection? |
| A67406 | Or( if the Souldiers were indeed so fast asleep, as that nothing of all this could waken Any of them;) How could they tell, Who took him away? |
| A67406 | Or, that St. Paul did not Know it? |
| A67406 | That the Wicked are not also to be Raised? |
| A67406 | Why should it be thought a thing Incredible that God should Raise the Dead? |
| 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? |
| 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? |
| A67397 | ( For, what else is Inherent Righteousness?) |
| A67397 | And I would Ask those Men who choose to speak otherwise; Whether they think that, beside Justification, there is such a thing as Sanctification? |
| A67397 | But you will say, If we be Justified( as our Church tells us) by Faith onely; what need is there of Holyness, or a Godly Life? |
| A67397 | Now, That we are Sanctified by Holyness, no man denies: But is it by Holyness therefore that we are Justified? |
| A67397 | What shall we say then? |
| A67397 | Why doth the living man Complain? |
| A67397 | and, all the Graces of Gods Spirit? |
| A67383 | 1661? |
| A67383 | And why might not all this be said, without making such a Clutter? |
| A67383 | And why might not all this be said? |
| A67383 | But now, what is all this to the business of Mr. VVhaly? |
| A67383 | Had he, before that time, obtained a Patent for the sole- teaching of Dumb persons to speak? |
| A67383 | If he be ask''d, Whether Dr. Holder taught him to speak? |
| A67383 | If, Whether Dr. Wallis? |
| A67383 | Now, if he did Know, and Think all this: Why was it unfit for him to say it? |
| A67383 | Or, was it a crime( because he had failed of his enterprise on Mr. Popham) for me to undertake Mr. VVhaly with better success? |
| A67383 | Was it not as lawful for me to undertake Mr. Whaly, as for him to undertake Mr. Popham? |
| A67383 | pursue his Elements of Speech,( which were not publish''d till 1669 and which I have never yet seen,) rather than my own, published in 1653? |
| A67398 | ''t was meant only of a Temporal Death;( and how comes he then to Punish with Hell?) |
| A67398 | 9.19 to such captious Questions, Why doth he yet complain? |
| A67398 | Art thou a Master in Israel and knowest not these things? |
| A67398 | But how doth he thus bear witness to our Adoption? |
| A67398 | Can he enter a second time into his Mothers womb? |
| A67398 | How can a man be born when he is old? |
| A67398 | How can these things be? |
| A67398 | If any shall yet inquire, as Nicodemus here, How can these things be? |
| A67398 | If the Promises be but of things Temporal; how come the Threatnings to be, of things Eternal? |
| A67398 | Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdome of God? |
| A67398 | Nay but, O Man, who art thou that disputest against God? |
| A67398 | Nor is it for us to give Law to the Almighty, or say unto him, What doest thou? |
| A67398 | O generation of Vipers( saith Christ) how can ye, being Evil, speak Good things? |
| A67398 | To what purpose is the multitude of your Sacrifices? |
| A67398 | We may well rest satisfied, that he who hath said it, can doe it; without cavilling, or nice inquiring, How can these things be? |
| A67398 | by whom we are sealed to the day of Redemption? |
| A67398 | for who hath resisted his will? |
| A70600 | Fuller, William, 1670- 1717? |
| A70600 | Fuller, William, 1670- 1717? |
| A70600 | Might not such Persons have been present at the Labour, and have been admitted to see the Child actually delivered from the Queen''s Body? |
| A70600 | Might not the Queens naked Breast and Belly have been exposed to the View of the Heretical Ladies without any danger? |
| A70600 | Was it of no Concernment to those two persons, to prevent the discovery of the horrid Imposture by such a Material Evidence? |
| A70600 | Were not Coleman and Plunket hang''d to prevent telling of Tales, and what reason can our Author assign, why Mrs. Grey should have more favour? |
| A70600 | Why should the King have gone to the other side of the House with all the Men? |
| A70600 | Why what''s the Danger from those Hereticks? |
| A70600 | ],[ London? |
| A60542 | ? |
| A60542 | And indeed, Sir, what ruin may I not expect from such a formidable Encounterer? |
| A60542 | And what more easie for the Practicioner''s eye to apprehend? |
| A60542 | And what more natural? |
| A60542 | Does he mean out of Greek, or into Greek? |
| A60542 | For how can a sweet Musical Ingenuity, be any way tainted with the least Rudeness or Ingratitude? |
| A60542 | For if I do allow G sol re ut to stand in two places, why doth he not write the double relish, as''t is in the Diagram? |
| A60542 | Now who could expect the poor dumb Lute should receive any kind usage from an Observer that begins so terribly? |
| A60542 | To transpose a Lesson from any Key given, to any Key required; and shew which must be the Sharps and Flats in that Key? |
| A60542 | To what purpose are all these Mathematical Contrivances? |
| A60542 | Well, Sir, but how if people wo n''t conclude so? |
| A60542 | What a base fellow was this Monsieur Samboneer? |
| A60542 | What shall I do in this case? |
| A60542 | Which are the proper assignments of all regular Flats and Sharps in any position of Mi? |
| A60542 | Will they teach a man to make Air, or maintain the point of a Canon? |
| A60542 | qualis mutationum mora, confusio clavium, substitutio vocum? |
| A60542 | than for two Octave notes; which are so much the same, and have the same equivalent respect to all other Notes, should stand in the same place? |
| 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? |
| 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? |
| 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? |
| 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? |
| A67379 | ( that''s against the Fourth Commandment:) Or must they by consent agree upon the day? |
| A67379 | ( this I should think, if he would give me leave:) Or must they keep it some upon one day some on the other? |
| A67379 | 10. concerning the Feast of Pentecost? |
| A67379 | And Tradition is what he takes great pleasure to exclaim against; If that be admitted( saith he) where shall we stop? |
| A67379 | And When must he rectify that account? |
| A67379 | And how do we know but that these three days were three Sabbath days? |
| A67379 | And is not this a goodly proof? |
| A67379 | And that of what Pharaoh said to Moses and Aaron, Why do you Hinder their work, you make the people Rest from their burthens? |
| A67379 | And then, why should not our Sabbath be on Saturday as theirs was? |
| A67379 | And why may we not as well conclude that the day of his Resurrection was also a Sabbath? |
| A67379 | And why not? |
| A67379 | And why not? |
| A67379 | But I pray, How can he tell, otherwise than by Tradition, whether our Saturday or our Sunday, be the Seventh day in course from the Creation? |
| A67379 | But can any man think it is meant of any day? |
| A67379 | But doth he think it to be meant of any of these? |
| A67379 | But how doth this concern his Coming to Iudgment? |
| A67379 | But suppose we do allow that one Sabbath is to be called Sabbatum what are we to call two or more Sabbaths? |
| A67379 | But then as to that, Why the First day rather than another? |
| A67379 | But what is all this to Sunday? |
| A67379 | But what then? |
| A67379 | But when it is, to go three days into the Wilderness to keep a Feast to the Lord; what is this to a Weekly Sabbath? |
| A67379 | But why not as angry with the Monday? |
| A67379 | But why not? |
| A67379 | But why upon Saturday if on that day( as he would have us think) they worshiped Saturn? |
| A67379 | But why upon a Saturday rather than a Sunday? |
| A67379 | But will he say so as to the Resurrection? |
| A67379 | Doth he think that this Fourteenth day at even was the end of the Thirteenth day, the Fourteenth day then beginning? |
| A67379 | Doth not the fair prospect of the place import thus much, that they were then met to break Bread, as being the first day of the week? |
| A67379 | Doth our Author think the name of Sunday to be as old as Iob''s times? |
| A67379 | How much less Man who is a Worm, and the Son of Man which is a Worm? |
| A67379 | If Christs Presence and Preaching will prove the Ascension day to be a Sabbath, why should it not as well prove the Resurrection day to be a Sabbath? |
| A67379 | If he say that the account is to be rectified by the way( before he comes home) then Where? |
| A67379 | If on Monday the Heathens( as he would have us think) did worship the Moon, as the Sun on Sunday, why is he not as angry with that? |
| A67379 | If you ask, How much sooner? |
| A67379 | If you ask, How this can be? |
| A67379 | Must not they be Sabbata? |
| A67379 | Must they never Restore the Sabbath because they do not know the day? |
| A67379 | Or must they begin upon a New Account? |
| A67379 | Or,( if that be too hard a question) whether of the two is the Seventh day of the Iewish week? |
| A67379 | Then, to what purpose are these alleged, in disparagement of the Christian Sabbath? |
| A67379 | What doth this Gentleman think( in such case) should be done? |
| A67379 | What is Man, that thou art mindful of him, and the Son of Man that thou visitest him? |
| A67379 | What other occasion was there of mentioning what day of the Week it was? |
| A67379 | Who, but our Lord Iesus Christ, that is Lord of the Sabbath, hath power to institute a Sabbath day? |
| A67379 | and by What rule? |
| A67379 | and which day of the Week shall he reckon that to be? |
| A67379 | or When? |
| A67379 | or must they keep it one on the one day, and the other on the other? |
| A67379 | or other of the Week days? |
| A67379 | they must cast up their accounts, tell their money,& c. because they were to offer according as the Lord hath blessed them? |
| A67379 | what of this? |
| A67379 | when he comes home, or somewhere by the way? |
| A97067 | & c. Are they a Piece of the Whole and make up the totum Compositum? |
| A97067 | ( Which is all one as if you should ask What is the Essence of an Essence? |
| A97067 | ( Yea, why may not the Soule see, when the Eye is put out?) |
| A97067 | ( or Vpon what rather?) |
| A97067 | Again, If there be Apparet and Apparuit, why not Est and Erit? |
| A97067 | And first, Whether Vnity be not All in God? |
| A97067 | And if Any Creatures may be possibly distinct from other, Why not These Creatures that now are? |
| A97067 | And if so, then how doth it differ f ● om Thought or Ratiocina ● ion? |
| A97067 | And if this be Hell, who will be afraid to Sinne? |
| A97067 | And if this be Hell; who will be afraid to Sinne? |
| A97067 | And is not Truth the same? |
| A97067 | And is not a Stone the same?] |
| A97067 | And such a Coexistence Aristotle and his followers will not deny; Else how can they speak of Qualitates Remissae? |
| A97067 | And why? |
| A97067 | And why? |
| A97067 | Are these Actions its Integrall Parts, as the Members are of the Body; and severall Waters of One Stream? |
| A97067 | Are they so? |
| A97067 | At, inquam, quare? |
| A97067 | At, inquie ●, quidni? |
| A97067 | Because every thing is its own Recipient? |
| A97067 | Between Davids One Act of Adultery, and the lascivious persons Constant Practise? |
| A97067 | But I ask, Whether he think this Attribute Love( and so of the rest) to be an Adequate expression of that whole Essence? |
| A97067 | But I demand withall, Whether Action be the sole End of the Soule? |
| A97067 | But how doth this prove its Essence to be Vnity? |
| A97067 | But if I ask, what it is To be Spirituall? |
| A97067 | But if difference of Time and Place be only imaginary; then why do we deny to the Papists, that Christs Body is corporeally present in the Sacrament? |
| A97067 | But is it soe? |
| A97067 | But is there not t ● e same Reason of Actions that is of Time? |
| A97067 | But is this all he seeks to prove? |
| A97067 | But what Evill do they mean? |
| A97067 | But what is there in all this to perswade us, that Unity is their Essence? |
| A97067 | But why so? |
| A97067 | But why? |
| A97067 | But will he say, So is it in our case? |
| A97067 | But will they say that Morall Evill is so too? |
| A97067 | But you aske, Why then did not God immediately and intrinsecally communicate this to the Soule it selfe, rather then as a Faculty, or by a Faculty? |
| A97067 | But, saith he; What is this their Actus primus? |
| A97067 | Can we not see whether he be there or not? |
| A97067 | Chapter, Whether the Soule( without an intervenient Faculty) may not be the Recipient of Truth? |
| A97067 | Cujus in examine pro lemmate habeatur; Formalem rationem propositionis constare in compositione praedicati cum subjecto? |
| A97067 | Dices, quidni quantitas possit esse sine figurâ? |
| A97067 | Doth a Stone cease to be Heavy, when it ceaseth to Fall downwards? |
| A97067 | Else, where is the fault in this Syllogisme? |
| A97067 | Evill in Metaphysicks ▪ or Evill in Ethicks? |
| A97067 | Falshood, saith he, is a Vanity, a Lye, a Nothing And why so? |
| A97067 | For I demand, What Principle is there implanted in nature to enform me, Whether there ever were such a City as Troy? |
| A97067 | For answer, I will but demand in generall, which his Lordship judgeth to be most E ● cellent, the End, or the Mean ●? |
| A97067 | For are there not many Individualls under the same Species, whereof One is not the Other? |
| A97067 | For granting all things to be One, Yet how shall I know, whether there be an Vnicorn ●, a Phoenix a Mermaid, or Ebur F ● ● ● il ●? |
| A97067 | For if he were there, then he Is there: since Then and Now are all one: And if he Be there, why do not I see him there? |
| A97067 | For if we knew, that All things are one, what need we feare either difficulty or danger? |
| A97067 | For its nature being Privative, and no Reall Being, how can the Soule or Truth work upon Nothing? |
| A97067 | For that is his Lordships next demand; Who is it that communicateth this Light? |
| A97067 | For what is the nature of Morall Good, or Evill? |
| A97067 | For, Is not Water its own Contentum: Is not the Vessell also its own Contentum? |
| A97067 | God commanded Moses to go down into Egipt,& c. and Aaron to offer Sacrifice: Doe I Sinne therefore when I doe not- obey this command made to them? |
| A97067 | Hath God( like Isaack) but One Blessing? |
| A97067 | How Christs body can be at the Same Time in Severall Places? |
| A97067 | How can we be said to remember? |
| A97067 | How? |
| A97067 | Humanitas you may say is Forma Hominis; but will you ask again, What is that which is forma Humanitatis? |
| A97067 | I ask therefore first, whether Fire( supposing it to be an Element) be not the true Recipient of Heat? |
| A97067 | I ask therefore, whether morall Goodnesse, or Honesty, ● e the Essence, the Entity of a Stone? |
| A97067 | I ask, if the Iteration be somwhat more then the first Commission? |
| A97067 | I desire, first, to know Whence the great Variety in the Creature doth proceed, if all Being be absolutely Homogeneall? |
| A97067 | I grant it; But what then? |
| A97067 | I reply, Because, in your Lordships name, invited: If why so late? |
| A97067 | I ● so, how can a Learned Schollar be said to Know more then an Ignorant Peasant? |
| A97067 | If I ask What the Soule is? |
| A97067 | If I be demanded therefore of what I doe, Why at all? |
| A97067 | If Iron desire Union,( or conjunction rather) with the Loadstone, doth this prove their Specificall Essence to be One? |
| A97067 | If Mans Essence be the higher degree, Why hath not Man the Loadstones Magnetick faculty? |
| A97067 | If Simile be Reall, why not Dissimile? |
| A97067 | If Succession and Difference of Time be only imaginary; Then why do I not N ● w know, that which I shall know To morrow? |
| A97067 | If all Actings be new Discoveries, How and When can wee be said to Remember? |
| A97067 | If every thing be the Recipient of its own Essence, must therfore this Essence needs be Truth? |
| A97067 | If he ask therfore, Doe they leave us any latitude in any other Commandements? |
| A97067 | If it be, then must it exist, else you allow it but a bare Notionall Being; And if it exist, mu ● t it not be that which you call actus secundus? |
| A97067 | If so, then I demand, From whence they are received? |
| A97067 | If so, then how comes it to passe, that the Soule needs the service of the Body? |
| A97067 | If so, then what is the difference between an Act of Sinning, and a Course of Sinning? |
| A97067 | If the Magnets Essence be the higher degree of Light, Why hath not the Magnet the use of Reason? |
| A97067 | If the One be Positive, why not the Other? |
| A97067 | If the Stone understood, and the Soule understanding, be the Same; then when began this Unity, ● ● ● ● Identy? |
| A97067 | If there be a prius and posterius in Appearing why not in Being? |
| A97067 | If you ask What this Substantiall Form is? |
| A97067 | If you aske What is the Form of this Activity( or Actuality rather) of this Actus primus which is the Soules Essence, If it be not Rationall Workings? |
| A97067 | Is it not Reason? |
| A97067 | Is it then his first Argument, propounded towards the end of the first chapter? |
| A97067 | Is therefore all Being the Same? |
| A97067 | It is true, it do ● h so: But( shall I speak it once for all?) |
| A97067 | Knowest thou not that I can pray to my Father, and he will send ● e more then twelve Legions of Angels? |
| A97067 | Lastly, How passeth( saith he) this Light from the Vnderstanding to the Soule? |
| A97067 | Lastly, why may not this and other Faculties be produced in the Soule and with the Soule, by immediate creation, from God? |
| A97067 | May not a Line disagree from its measure, by being too Long, as well as by being too Short? |
| A97067 | May not an Essence Be without Action, because it can not Act without Action? |
| A97067 | Must its Essence be Action, because its Efficacy is Action? |
| A97067 | Nay when two Drops of Water are separated, or conjoyned, is there any Essentiall or Reall Mutation in either? |
| A97067 | Nay why should an Artist be more skilfull in his Trade then another? |
| A97067 | Next, why may not the Soule, or Vnderstanding( whether you will) receive this Light of Reason from another Creature? |
| A97067 | Now if Likenesse be a Reall Relation; why may not Vnlikenesse be also a relation Reall? |
| A97067 | Now if Malum Metaphysicum, a Negation, a Non- Ens, may be Bonum Morale, what shall be the Malum Morale opposite to this Bonum? |
| A97067 | Now this shews perhaps, That the Morall Virtues are Vnited in One generall Essence: But how appears it, That this Essence is Vnity? |
| A97067 | Now, what is the Lawfullnesse of an Action, but its Morall Goodnesse? |
| A97067 | Objiciet forsan aliquis; An igitur[ Socrates est doctus] perinde est ac[ omnis homo est doctus?] |
| A97067 | Or 3 I ask, whether Appearing and not- Appearing be a Reall or onely Imaginary difference? |
| A97067 | Or Can he produce more but Will not? |
| A97067 | Or did they then contract this Unity, when first the Soul did actually Know it? |
| A97067 | Or( if it doe) doth it pro ● e ▪ that this One Essence is Vnity? |
| A97067 | Otherwise ▪ what will be the difference between Ignorance and Errour, between Silence and a Lye? |
| A97067 | Otherwise, How could it be better for that man( which betrayed our Saviour) that he had never been born? |
| A97067 | Secondly, If all Beings be but Gradually distinct: I demand Whether the Essence of a Man, or the Essence of a Magnet be the more Intense degree? |
| A97067 | Secondly, If one action give the Soule a Coexistence to all ● ternity, then what doth the Second and Subsequent Acts produce? |
| A97067 | Sed quàm benè convenit haec definitio axiomati Proprio, quod tamen illi est altera species axiomatis Specialis? |
| A97067 | Sed replico; An[ omnis homo est rationalis] idem valet ac[ omne animal est rationale?] |
| A97067 | Si semperde parte ▪ licèt de unâ parte dicatur, quid impedit quin de aliâ negetur, ita ut& affirmatio& negatio sint simul verae? |
| A97067 | Situs est dispositio partium corporis in loco; quid hoc aliud quàm modus? |
| A97067 | So then, what is the Form of this primus Actus? |
| A97067 | That all things did exist[ in their Beings] ab omni aeterno; And are they now but under ● Decree?) |
| A97067 | That the whole Aggregatum, the whole Heap or Multitude of Creatures do make One World? |
| A97067 | That( in the same manner) severall Acts doe constitute One Soule? |
| A97067 | The Act, or the Power? |
| A97067 | The Argument was this, The Vnderstanding is nothing but a Ray of the Divine Nature,& c. And is not Truth the same? |
| A97067 | The Eare can tell us, That it hears no Noise,( for how can it since there is none?) |
| A97067 | There is One Sunne; but is this Vnity Essentiall to it? |
| A97067 | Therefore First, I ask, Whether there be not the same reason for Succession in Time, that is for Extension in Place? |
| A97067 | Therefore what? |
| A97067 | This Argument? |
| A97067 | This being premised, I ask, Whether this One Emanation which his Lordship seeks to establish, be Really distinct from God or no? |
| A97067 | This not being well weighed saith he, hath raised that Question,[ How God should see All things?] |
| A97067 | Vnity then being so inseparable, as without which God could not be what he is, May it not be said to be Co- essentiall to him? |
| A97067 | Was there any Detraction, or Addition of Essence, or any Reality, that concerned Adams person, at such time as his children were born? |
| A97067 | We account those S ● ones precious, that have in them some rare Vertues: And why not the Soul, indued with so Divine a Faculty? |
| A97067 | Were they the Same before the Stone was actually understood? |
| A97067 | What Principle to enform, that it rained yesterday& is faire to day? |
| A97067 | What are the degrees of Heat or Cold in this or that Simple? |
| A97067 | What can be the Form of Rationality, but ipsa Rationalitas? |
| A97067 | What doth it Act? |
| A97067 | What hinders but that every man should be praescius futuri? |
| A97067 | What is the Form of it? |
| A97067 | What is the Fountain from which they are communicated? |
| A97067 | What is the difference between the Once committing of a sinful Act, and the Oft Reiterating of it? |
| A97067 | Whether Dictamnum be a Soveraign Balm? |
| A97067 | Whether Tobacco be hot or cold? |
| A97067 | Whether it were so destroyed? |
| A97067 | Whether the Philosophers Stone, or a Perpetuall Motion, be possibile? |
| A97067 | Whether this or that were Plato''s or Aristotle''s Opinion? |
| A97067 | Whether, in answering an Objection, he doe not overthrow his principall Argument? |
| A97067 | Who is it that receiveth from the Womb of Eternity that reasonable creature, but the creature received? |
| A97067 | Why are we exhorted to Cease from evill; if every Act be Eternall, and whatsoever succeeds can be but the Same? |
| A97067 | Why do we allow, that Faith doth concurrere effica ● iter ad salutem, but deny the same to Works? |
| A97067 | Why do we dispute concerning matters of Fact; as whether Peter were at Rome, and the like? |
| A97067 | Why doe we cry down the Lutheran Consubstantiation, as absurd? |
| A97067 | Why may not an Infant new born plead his cause as well as the best experienced Lawyer? |
| A97067 | Why not Together, as well as Successively, if Time be nothing? |
| A97067 | Yea what need is there of the Body ▪ at all? |
| A97067 | Yea, how void of Envy at anothers good, and thoughts of Revenging injuries? |
| A97067 | You will ask me, What distinction therefore will I allow between actus primus and secundus; between the Agent and its Action? |
| A97067 | and againe, What is the Essence of That Essence? |
| A97067 | and the Loadstone the true Recipient of the Attractive virtue that is in it? |
| A97067 | and the Sunne, the true Recipient of Light? |
| A97067 | annon utraque est universalis? |
| A97067 | are not they divisible into as many parts, whereof every parcell answers to a portion of that Time? |
| A97067 | by one sad stroke who shot Religion, Learning, Piety, what not? |
| A97067 | c ● quo non dicatur Doctus? |
| A97067 | do they give it a new Being, a new Eternity? |
| A97067 | doe Former Actings no way help our Subsequent Acts? |
| A97067 | h. e. res sine modo? |
| A97067 | how is one said to be learned, another ignorant? |
| A97067 | if in his operations we admit not of this choice, to work Thus rather then Th ● ●? |
| A97067 | if the Operations be the Souls Essence?) |
| A97067 | is it not some Act? |
| A97067 | is it not, a Conformity, or a Difformity to a Morall Precept? |
| A97067 | must therefore Unity be Positive or Reall? |
| A97067 | not by Physicall Production, but by Essentiall Emanation? |
| A97067 | or Whether they be some thing or nothing? |
| A97067 | or would there have been afterwards, if all except Adam had been swept away? |
| A97067 | quid hoc aliud quàm modus? |
| A97067 | quomodo mensurabitur aliquid aut dividetur ubi nulla extensio, nullae partes? |
| A97067 | shall that be also a Non- En ● ● If it be, then how can it be contrary to the other? |
| A97067 | what is the benefit of study, and of experience? |
| A97067 | what, To be a Substance? |
| A97067 | whether he must needs be Infinite, because he is One; or One because he is Infinite? |
| A97067 | which Argument? |
| A97051 | & c. Do they signify, to leade, to guide, to dran? |
| A97051 | & c.( Nay, never aske that question, we know you are good at giving names, without asking) I hope, the next question will be, Who gave you that name? |
| A97051 | & what shall be the third side? |
| A97051 | ''T is visible, therefore''t is divisible, But could you not as well have said, That A Marke consists of two Nobles? |
| A97051 | ( And doe you not think then, that Gorraeus was a wise man, to write a large Volumne in folio, intituled Definitiones Medicae?) |
| A97051 | ( And why not the solution of Problems also; as well as the inferring of Theorems?) |
| A97051 | ( But did you observe, whether I did well or ill, so to call it?) |
| A97051 | ( For who are more compassionate to those that feele the toothach, then those that are most tormented with it themselves?) |
| A97051 | ( I mean, in the Latine? |
| A97051 | ( before we leave this point) who t was told thee, that 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 was a marke with a hot iron? |
| A97051 | ( though perhaps you will cavill at that phrase) and not rather to take a wife? |
| A97051 | 21. Who is so stupid, as both to mistake in Geometry, and allso to persist in it, when another detects his error to him? |
| A97051 | 51. where you tell me, that Adducis malleum, ut occidas muscam, is not good Latin? |
| A97051 | 6, by the Equality of the Quotients? |
| A97051 | Again, it is, you say the Arch of a circle: But what Arch? |
| A97051 | Am I bound to give an account of all thy dreames? |
| A97051 | And are not these pure Criticismes; think you? |
| A97051 | And doe you not define them here? |
| A97051 | And doe you not take this to be a fault? |
| A97051 | And doth any body so beside your selfe? |
| A97051 | And doth not Euclide''s word 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 signify to contain between? |
| A97051 | And doth not every body say so as well as I? |
| A97051 | And doth not this come home to what I said? |
| A97051 | And for a Logician to define Genus, Species, Vniversale, Individuum, Argumentum, Syllogisinus,& c. in the sense wherein they are used in Logick? |
| A97051 | And ha''nt you done it handsomely? |
| A97051 | And if corpus quodpiam, may, without absurdity, be 〈 ◊ 〉 circumduci, why not as well adduci? |
| A97051 | And is it not lawfull so to do? |
| A97051 | And is it not so? |
| A97051 | And is it not true, that 14 is equall to 12+ 2? |
| A97051 | And is not Arithmeticall proportion, proportion? |
| A97051 | And is not all this sufficient to prove the first Article unsound? |
| A97051 | And is not his as much a Quotient, as that a Remainder? |
| A97051 | And is not then, that( by your own law p. 10,) in your selfe intolerable, which you can not tolerate in another? |
| A97051 | And is not this Tinker- like, to mend one hole and make two? |
| A97051 | And is not this a fault in Method? |
| A97051 | And is not this a worthy confutation? |
| A97051 | And is not this a worthy objection? |
| A97051 | And is not this abominably false? |
| A97051 | And is not this demonstration then well amended? |
| A97051 | And is not this then a just exception to your argument? |
| A97051 | And is not this true? |
| A97051 | And is not this true? |
| A97051 | And may not those be called Grammaticall, and these Logicall definitions? |
| A97051 | And that whatsoever is not, in any place so circumscribed, is no where, and therefore nothing? |
| A97051 | And then( as if between sleeping and waking) you ask, if it be you or ● that dream? |
| A97051 | And they are like to have a great purchase that get it, are they not? |
| A97051 | And was it so when you wrote those passages last cited? |
| A97051 | And was not this your meaning? |
| A97051 | And who might doe it better? |
| A97051 | And why doth it not follow? |
| A97051 | And why impertinently? |
| A97051 | And why not as well, Quod esse consideramus, consideratur esse? |
| A97051 | And why not, said J,( without any more adoe) as the time to the time? |
| A97051 | And why not? |
| A97051 | And why? |
| A97051 | And withall, pray me to tell you, where it was that I read the word Empusa, for the Boys play I spake of? |
| A97051 | And would have me consider, who it was, was hanged upon Hamans Gallows? |
| A97051 | And you aske, To whom it is known? |
| A97051 | And''t is but as if you should have asked; What may be the height of that Parabola, or Triangle, whose Basis is equall to AC? |
| A97051 | And, I pray, why so? |
| A97051 | And, pray look upon the Argument once again: doth it prove any more than so? |
| A97051 | And, what Angle? |
| A97051 | Anguli qui rectis continentur lineis, rectilinei; qui curvis, anguli curvilinei sunt; qui recta& curva continentur, misti? |
| A97051 | Are you Philosophers? |
| A97051 | But are they not good also, of Bodies inanimate? |
| A97051 | But by the way, how comes a Point on a suddaine to be a Body? |
| A97051 | But doth he not, to your understanding prove, that the least right lined Angle is bigger th ● n it? |
| A97051 | But heark you, man; to lead, you told us, is the signification of the word, when it is used of Animates; why then do you talke of leading a hammer? |
| A97051 | But how do you prove hence, that a point hath parts? |
| A97051 | But how doe you prove this consequence? |
| A97051 | But how doth it appeare, that I think so? |
| A97051 | But how, say you, do I demonstrate it? |
| A97051 | But however,''t is to be hoped, that your new demonstration is a good one; is it not? |
| A97051 | But if your meaning be, what do I say to the contrary? |
| A97051 | But is not by and between in this case all one? |
| A97051 | But is there any Geometrician( who hath well examined it) will say''t is true? |
| A97051 | But is this such a provocation as may warrant you, by Vespasians Law, to rave at the next man you meet with? |
| A97051 | But prithee, why dost thou aske me such a question? |
| A97051 | But suppose I do; what then? |
| A97051 | But suppose they doe, sometimes, signify to guide, sometimes to lead; what then? |
| A97051 | But was it not a fault in the Copy first? |
| A97051 | But what becomes of your rule in the mean while, which sent us to that Table for solution? |
| A97051 | But what if I did? |
| A97051 | But what if a Body be not moved? |
| A97051 | But what is all this to the raking off that absurdity with which you are here charged? |
| A97051 | But what is it not good for? |
| A97051 | But what should it have been, if not so? |
| A97051 | But what then? |
| A97051 | But what then? |
| A97051 | But what''s that to the purpose? |
| A97051 | But what''s this to the clearing of your Definitions? |
| A97051 | But where was my oversight? |
| A97051 | But why a marke of ignorance? |
| A97051 | But why is it impossible? |
| A97051 | But why must we not think, he meant as he saith? |
| A97051 | But why no quotient?) |
| A97051 | But why no reason to expect it? |
| A97051 | But why not that, Latin? |
| A97051 | But why not? |
| A97051 | But why should you think it is not so? |
| A97051 | But why was it not so? |
| A97051 | But why was it not to be exspected? |
| A97051 | But why, now, is not adducis malleum good Latin? |
| A97051 | But why? |
| A97051 | But why? |
| A97051 | But, I pray, is not A/ B as good a Quotient, as A- B is a Remainder? |
| A97051 | But, Sir, must I be bound to tell you a tale, and find you ears too? |
| A97051 | But, say you, what in a line is the extreme, but the first or last part? |
| A97051 | Can a man teach Mathematicks, in any language, without Grammer? |
| A97051 | Can it be made a sphericall Angle so long as the lines retain their streightnesse? |
| A97051 | Compounded of what?) |
| A97051 | Did I deny this? |
| A97051 | Did I not explaine your meaning right? |
| A97051 | Did any body deny it? |
| A97051 | Do not these wofull notions of yours, and the language that doth accompany them, shew handsomely together? |
| A97051 | Do you not think now, that a boy 〈 ◊ 〉 Westminster Schoole would have been soundly whipt for such a fault? |
| A97051 | Do you think it possible to make an Angle Sphericall, Curvilineall, or mixed, so long as the lines retain their streightnesse? |
| A97051 | Do you think that the assigning of two sides, without an Angle, will sufficiently determine the bignesse of a triangle? |
| A97051 | Do you think''t is worth while after all this, to examine your demonstration? |
| A97051 | Do you think, nothing, is Mathematicall, wherein a man makes use of Grammar? |
| A97051 | Doe you not think that true too? |
| A97051 | Doe you see the quidem now? |
| A97051 | Doth it therefore follow, that either Lines or Letters be homogeneous to Time? |
| A97051 | Else what needs your next definion, of similia similiter posita? |
| A97051 | Even so, the lines retain their streightnesse, though they be crooked, is that it? |
| A97051 | For to what purpose? |
| A97051 | Had I not reason then to prove it? |
| A97051 | Have you any more to say? |
| A97051 | Have you any thing to offer by way of proof? |
| A97051 | Have you not used the words many times before in the precedent chapters? |
| A97051 | How do you apply the similitude? |
| A97051 | How do you prove this? |
| A97051 | How doth it bewray it? |
| A97051 | How prove you this consequence, If an extreme, then a part? |
| A97051 | I asked, Whoever defined a Line to be a Body? |
| A97051 | I asked, whether this were not to commit a circle? |
| A97051 | If it be no Substance, how can it be a Body in your language? |
| A97051 | If not, pray tell me how many yards long is an hour? |
| A97051 | If so; then whether of the two do you affirme? |
| A97051 | If this be your meaning( as J am sure it is or should be,) what is it that troubles you? |
| A97051 | Ignorance of what? |
| A97051 | In one Point, you say; but which one? |
| A97051 | Is a Parallelogramme, said J, sufficiently determined, be the assignement of but one side, and never an angle? |
| A97051 | Is a sphericall Angle made by the divergence of streight lines or of cooked? |
| A97051 | Is it any one? |
| A97051 | Is it not lawfull for me to write Symbols, till you can understand them? |
| A97051 | Is it not proper for words of Art,( voces artis,) to be defined and explained in that art to which they belong? |
| A97051 | Is it sound? |
| A97051 | Is it such a provocation of M. Hobs, for any man to admire us, that he may thenceforth, without incivility, be called a Beast, or what you please? |
| A97051 | Is it then J, or you? |
| A97051 | Is not that definition of a Man; as good as yours of Bodies Equall? |
| A97051 | Is there not the same Arithmeticall Proportion? |
| A97051 | Is this good sense? |
| A97051 | Is 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 and 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉, all one with you? |
| A97051 | J asked, How an impetus can be ordinately applied to a Line? |
| A97051 | May they not be applied as well to a Hammer, as to a Tree? |
| A97051 | Next, You aske, you say, where it is that you say or dreame, that the lengths run over are in proportion of the Impetus to the Times? |
| A97051 | Now are not these faults enough for one poor definition? |
| A97051 | Now what do you think of the businesse? |
| A97051 | Or is it thus, Even so, the Angle remains an angle made by lines retaining their streightnesse, when they be crooked? |
| A97051 | Or, How much line will make a day? |
| A97051 | Or, That he is not so concluded, and therefore no where, and so nothing? |
| A97051 | Or, if those words do not import so much when you speak them, why should you think they doe when I speak them? |
| A97051 | Or, where is it, that it doth not as strongly proceed in the case of any Conoeid, as of a Sphere? |
| A97051 | Perhaps you meant so,( though yet I question whether you did then think of more contacts then one:) but why then did you not say so? |
| A97051 | Plin& c. doe they signify to lead a fever? |
| A97051 | Quidsi de vestro quippiam orem abducere? |
| A97051 | Say you so? |
| A97051 | Shew me where ever Euclide doth acknowledge any angle to be equall to two right angles? |
| A97051 | Tell me( say you) egregious Professors, How is 6 to 3 double proportion? |
| A97051 | Tell mee, where lines, either in the same or in parallell positions, are by Euclide said to incline or be inclined each to other? |
| A97051 | That God is so circumscribed or concluded within certain limits, and excluded from all others at the same time? |
| A97051 | The thirteenth definit ● ● ●, A Terme or Bound, is that which is the extreme of any thin ● 〈 ◊ 〉 you say, is exact,( very good?) |
| A97051 | Then you goe on to catechise us; What is your name? |
| A97051 | This was the Printers fault too, was it not? |
| A97051 | Though this be Animate; not that? |
| A97051 | Till you tell us of what? |
| A97051 | Upon this I asked; why not, either this after that; or that before this? |
| A97051 | Very true, this is the first proposition; what then? |
| A97051 | Very witty? |
| A97051 | Was there nothing else to fasten upon with more advantage then these poor harmlesse phrases? |
| A97051 | Well, But if not his Definitions, what then is it, in Euclide, that is Mathematicall? |
| A97051 | Well, I hope at least the first is sound, is it not? |
| A97051 | Well, but what for the other side? |
| A97051 | Well, what then? |
| A97051 | Well; and what of this? |
| A97051 | Well; but how is the sense to be supplied? |
| A97051 | Well; but what is it you drive at? |
| A97051 | Well; how is this to be understood? |
| A97051 | Were you then of opinion that the Angle contained or comprehended between the lines AB and AC,( as you there speak,) was a plain superficies? |
| A97051 | What a doe then doe you make for nothing? |
| A97051 | What doctrine of mine? |
| A97051 | What if I should desire to carry away somewhat of yours? |
| A97051 | What ignorance? |
| A97051 | What is to be done thus? |
| A97051 | What need had you to cumber the Proposition with Impetus and Multiplication, and Products, when they might as well be spared? |
| A97051 | What need you say any more? |
| A97051 | What say you to this? |
| A97051 | What should I doe more? |
| A97051 | What then? |
| A97051 | What then? |
| A97051 | What then? |
| A97051 | What then? |
| A97051 | What then? |
| A97051 | What''s next? |
| A97051 | What? |
| A97051 | What? |
| A97051 | Where is the mistake then? |
| A97051 | Where''s the fault then? |
| A97051 | Who told you, that this is my doctrine? |
| A97051 | Why should you think( if those definitions were such as they should have been) that wee needed another definition of the Same, or Equall Proportions? |
| A97051 | Will you assume But God is a figure? |
| A97051 | Would you have us understand that line GF, to be the act of differing? |
| A97051 | You ask, how we know it? |
| A97051 | You doe not, I suppose, think it worth the while for me to confute them,( or if you doe I doe not;) for to what purpose? |
| A97051 | You then aske, whether it be not also true in these numbers, 0, 2, 4, 6,& c. or 0, 7, 14, 21,& c? |
| A97051 | You would have me do so again, would you? |
| A97051 | absurd to say that the proportion of two to one is double; and asks, is not every double proportion, the double of some proportion? |
| A97051 | and as well designed? |
| A97051 | and how it can be contiguous when the whole thicknesse of the spheare is between? |
| A97051 | and if so, supposing it to be angle, must it not be Homogeneous? |
| A97051 | and not rather to draw a line? |
| A97051 | and of what circle? |
| A97051 | and that, in all cases? |
| A97051 | and then conclude, That, if God be at all any where, he must be so concluded within bounds? |
| A97051 | and then put your selfe to the trouble of a long and needlesse demonstration, when the bare citing of a definition would have served the turne? |
| A97051 | and to revenge your selfe upon him that comes next? |
| A97051 | and 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉 〈 ◊ 〉, the lines which do comprehend,( or contain between them) the Angle? |
| A97051 | as well as the same proportion between 3 and 2, and between 4 and 5? |
| A97051 | as well, as setting their Symbols one after another, with a line between, makes a Remainder? |
| A97051 | but doth it remain the same Angle? |
| A97051 | but of what semiparabola? |
| A97051 | but, because the Author had not put it in? |
| A97051 | can you have the face to deny it? |
| A97051 | did I say they do not? |
| A97051 | do you believe no body thinks so, but I? |
| A97051 | do you take the hammer to be animate? |
| A97051 | do you think these things will ever hold together? |
| A97051 | doe they signify nothing else? |
| A97051 | finding the proportion? |
| A97051 | i ● there then neither Point, nor Line, nor Length? |
| A97051 | if it were not possible for similia to be dissimiliter posita? |
| A97051 | is 20+ 19, equall to 2+ 2? |
| A97051 | is it good for nothing else? |
| A97051 | is it not proper for a Grammarian to define Gender, Number, Person, Case, Declension, Coniugation& c. in the sense wherein they are used in Grammer? |
| A97051 | is it not your selfe that affirme it so to be? |
| A97051 | is not 26 ⅔+ 3 ½= 30? |
| A97051 | is not 5= 4 × 1? |
| A97051 | is not the matter well amended? |
| A97051 | is the same proportion with the excesse of the part above the part, to what? |
| A97051 | is this sound? |
| A97051 | more than it is impossible to define Arithmeticall proportion universally by comparing of Remainders? |
| A97051 | none of them? |
| A97051 | or Geometricians? |
| A97051 | or Logicians? |
| A97051 | or a quarter of a Circle? |
| A97051 | or a quarter of an Arch? |
| A97051 | or do you believe, that any body thinks otherwise but you? |
| A97051 | or how doth this follow from the other? |
| A97051 | or is this to make the principles of Geometry firm and coherent? |
| A97051 | or make an Angle with it? |
| A97051 | or other things? |
| A97051 | or some one? |
| A97051 | or this, English? |
| A97051 | or to 1+ 3? |
| A97051 | or to draw a fever,( with cart- ropes, or a team of horses?) |
| A97051 | or to guide a fever? |
| A97051 | or to lead a wife? |
| A97051 | or what angle shall these contain? |
| A97051 | or would have us take you to be the ninny? |
| A97051 | or, at least, a fault in the Impression? |
| A97051 | or, which is all one, that too contiguous parts of the same right line, are by Euclide said to be inclined to each other, or to contain an angle? |
| A97051 | that is, doe not the Rootes of these numbers continually increase, as well as their Squares? |
| A97051 | that say a point is nothing? |
| A97051 | that you had given us false demonstrations& c. and then is it not spightfully done of us to discover them? |
| A97051 | the question remains, as it was before, whether this Modus do not here import a causall influence? |
| A97051 | the same quantity of divergence? |
| A97051 | though yet that very bowing alone, by your doctrine, be enough to make an Angle of it selfe? |
| A97051 | till they bu ● st? |
| A97051 | to guide a line, or to lead a line? |
| A97051 | to guide a wife? |
| A97051 | to thwart, or crosse each other? |
| A97051 | what think you? |
| A97051 | where, you now tell us,( for I had told you so before) it is not to be hard? |
| A97051 | whether the quantities be commensurable, or Incommensurable? |