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

As to what is observed of the defective expression of this unitive Principle by the word consciousness, that bare Consciousness, without consent, is no more than bare Omniscience. Sure it is not so much. For Consciousness doth not signify Omniscience. ⟨p. 112⟩We are conscious to our selves, yet are not omniscient. But I reckon, (as I find he also doth) that even consent added to consciousness, would yet leave the expression defective, and still want the unifying power which is sought after. For it would infer no more than a sort of moral union, which in the kind of it, may be found among men, between whom there is so little of natural union (speaking of the numerical nature) that they are actually separate.

As to what is observed of the defective expression of this unitive Principle by the word consciousness, that bare Consciousness, without consent, is no more than bare Omnisciency. Sure it is not so much. For Consciousness doth not signifie Omnisciency. ⟨p. 112⟩We are conscious to our selves, yet are not omniscient. But I reckon, (as I find he also doth) that even consent added to consciousness, would yet leave the expression defective, and still want the unifying power which is sought after. For it would infer no more than a sort of moral union, which in the kind of it, may be found among men, between whom there is so little of natural union (speaking of the numerical nature) that they are actually separate.

But now may we not suppose (as that which is possible, and actually is, (for ought we know) what may be fundamental to both Consciousness and Consent, a natural union even of the numerical natures? Such an union would not infer an Unity, or Identity of these Natures, Essences, Substances, or Beings themselves. For as W. J. hath well argued, Letter, p. 5, 6. Substances upon Union are not confounded or identified, or brought to unity of Substance, but ⟨p. 113⟩