A calm and sober enquiry concerning the possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead…

And how the Incarnation of the Son can be understood according to your Notion of Person, without the Fathers and Holy Ghosts Incarnation also, I confess I cannot apprehend. Your Notion of a Person contradistinct to the Scholastic ⟨p. 105⟩Notion, as was said before, seems to leave the Godhead to be but one hypostasis, or Person in the latter sense. How then are we to conceive of the hypostatical union? The assumed Nature will be as much hypostatically united with the Father, or the Spirit, as with the Son.

And how the Incarnation of the Son can be understood according to your Notion of Person, without the Fathers and Holy Ghosts Incarnation also, I confess I cannot apprehend. Your Notion of a Person contradistinct to the Scholastick ⟨p. 105⟩Notion, as was said before, seems to leave the Godhead to be but one hypostasis, or Person in the latter sense. How then are we to conceive of the hypostatical union? The assumed Nature will be as much hypostatically united with the Father, or the Spirit, as with the Son.

3. And doth not this civil, or merely respective Notion of a Person, the other being left, fall in with the Antitrinitarian? Will it not make us Unitarians only, as they affect to call themselves? Would any of them who (as you are pleased to take notice Letter 6. p. 1, 2.) say, none but a Mad-man would deny there may be three Persons in God, have been so mad (not yet professing themselves Converts) as to say so, if they had not supposed their Cause not hurt by this Notion of a Person? For, (as you well say, Letter 1.) we need not be fond of words, so the thing be agreed, so have they equal reason to say, we need not be afraid of words, if in the sense you agree with us. ⟨p. 106⟩And with one sort of them I only desire you to consider how great an appearance the asserting only of three Persons, in the one sense, quitting the other, will carry off an agreement?