A44670:26
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.
IV. Therefore since we may offend very highly by an arrogant pretence to the knowledge we have not, but shall not offend by confessing the ignorance ⟨p. 14⟩which we cannot (and therefore need not) remedy. We should abstain from confident Conclusions in the dark, and at random, especially concerning the Nature of God; and for instance from saying, we clearly see a sufficient distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit, in the Godhead cannot be, or is impossible. It expresses too little Reverence of God, as if his being had any, or so narrow, limits as to be presently seen thorough; an over-magnifying Opinion of our selves, as if our Eye could penetrate that vast and sacred darkness, or the glorious light (equally impervious to us) wherein God dwells; too great rudeness to the rest of Men, more than implicitly representing all Mankind besides as stark blind, who can discern nothing of what we pretend clearly to see.
And it is manifest this cannot be said to be impossible, upon any other Pretence, but that it consists not with the Unity of the Godhead, in opposition ⟨p. 16⟩to the multiplication thereof, or with that simplicity, which stands in opposition to the concurrence of all Perfections therein, with distinction greater than hath been commonly thought to belong to the Divine Nature. 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? or what simplicity belongs to it? 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? What distinction, and unity (conserved together) we can have, otherwise, an Idea of, without any apprehended inconsistency, absurdity or contradiction, we shall rashly pronounce to be impossible (or somewhat imperfectly resembled thereby) in the Divine Being, unless we understood it better than we do. Some prints and characters of that most perfect Being may be apprehended in the creatures, especially that are intelligent; such being expressly ⟨p. 17⟩