A44670:112
A calm and sober enquiry concerning the possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead…
A calm and sober enquiry concerning the possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead in a letter to a person of worth : occasioned by the lately published considerations on the explications of the doctrine of the Trinity by Dr. Wallis, Dr. Sherlock, Dr. S--th, Dr. Cudworth, &c. ...
London: printed by J. Astwood for Tho. Parkhurst, 1694
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
And I apprehend too some may ⟨p. 90⟩think so, at least a while; but such as have considered well, will not think so, and such as shall, I presume will not long. For,
1. If I had denied the simplicity of the Divine Nature, had the inference been just, that therefore I must grant a composition? How many instances might be given of one opposite not agreeing to this or that thing, when also the other doth as little agree! And most of all doth the transcendent excellency of the Divine Nature exempt it from the limiting by-partitions to which Creatures are subject.
1. If I had deny'd the simplicity of the Divine Nature, had the inference been just, that therefore I must grant a composition? How many instances might be given of one opposite not agreeing to this or that thing, when also the other doth as little agree! And most of all doth the transcendent excellency of the Divine Nature exempt it from the limiting by-partitions to which Creatures are subject.
Take Reason in the proper sense for arriving gradually by argumentation from the knowledge of more evident, to the knowledge of obscurer things, and so we cannot say the Divine Nature is rational. But is it therefore to be called irrational? Faith and Hope agree not to it. Are we therefore to think Infidelity or Despair do not disagree?