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

And whereas he after tells us these three being united by similitude of Nature, mutual consciousness, consent, cooperation under the greatest union possible; and in that state of union do constitute the [Greek or Hebrew], the entire all-comprehensive ⟨p. 118⟩Godhead, and adds, this looks somewhat like a conceivable thing. To this I Note two things: 1. That he makes it not look like so conceivable a thing, as it really may do. For he leaves out the most important thing that was as supposable as any of the rest, and prior to a mere similitude, viz. a natural union of these (supposed) distinct essences, without which they are not under the greatest union possible; and which, being supposed necessary, and eternal, cannot admit these should be more than one God.

And whereas he after tells us these three being united by similitude of Nature, mutual consciousness, consent, cooperation under the greatest union possible; and in that state of union do constitute the 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, the entire all-comprehensive ⟨p. 118⟩Godhead, and adds, this looks somewhat like a conceivable thing. To this I Note two things: 1. That he makes it not look like so conceivable a thing, as it really may do. For he leaves out the most important thing that was as supposable as any of the rest, and prior to a meer similitude, viz. a natural union of these (supposed) distinct essences, without which they are not under the greatest union possible; and which, being supposed necessary, and eternal, cannot admit these should be more than one God.

2. I note that what he opposes to it (so defectively represented) is as defective, that the Christian Trinity doth not use to be represented thus, &c. What hurt is there in it, if it can be more intelligibly represented than hath been used?