A44701:78
A view of that part of the late considerations adderest to H.H. about the…A view of that part of the late considerations addrest to H.H. about the…
A view of that part of the late considerations adderest to H.H. about the Trinity which concerns the sober enquiry, on that subject : in a letter to the former friend.A view of that part of the late considerations addrest to H.H. about the Trinity which concerns the sober enquiry, on that subject : in a letter to the former friend.
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1695
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.
Ay, but it will further infer Tritheism. It will make three Gods. And if this be not to make three Gods, it can never be made appear that the Pagans held more Gods —Yes, if there be no natural, vital Nexus, if they be not united in One, of which the Pagans never talked: Or, if they be co-ordinate, not subordinate, as Dr. Cudworth speaks. And I add, if that subordination be, not arbitrary, but by necessary, natural, continual emanation of the second from the first, and of the third ⟨p. 44⟩from both the other; so as that their goings forth may be truly from everlasting, as is said of the One, and may as well be conceived of another of them.
Ay, but it will further infer Tritheism. It will make three Gods. And if this be not to make three Gods, it can never be made appear that the Pagans held more Gods —Yes, if there be no natural, vital Nexus, if they be not united in One, of which the Pagans never talkt: Or, if they be co-ordinate, not subordinate, as Dr. Cudworth speaks. And I add, if that subordination be, not arbitrary, but by necessary, natural, continual emanation of the second from the first, and of the third ⟨p. 44⟩from both the other; so as that their goings forth may be truly from everlasting, as is said of the One, and may as well be conceived of another of them.
I would have the Trinitarians be content with the Reproach of falling in, quoad hoc, with Plato; and not envy their Antagonists the honour of more closely following Mahomet. And, Sir, there is more Paganism in denying this, and the Divine Revelation upon which it is grounded, than in supposing it.
No. But there can be no such Nexus. Conversation, Consociation, mutual Harmony, Agreement, and Delectation—cannot be conceived, but between Beings so distinct and diverse, that they can be One in no Natural respect, but only in a Civil, or Economical. This is loud, and earnest. But why can there not? Setting aside Noise and Clamour, I want to know a Reason, why intelligent Beings may not be as intimately, and naturally united with one another, as unintelligent, and intelligent? And if so, why such Union should spoil