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

And it is really a great assuming, when a man shall adventure to pronounce so peremptorily, against the so common judgment of the Christian Church, without any colour of proof, that our copies, are false copies, our translations, our explications false, and the generality of the wisest, the most inquisitive, most pious, and most judicious assertors of the Christian cause, for so many continued ages, fools, or cheats for owning and avowing them; for no other imaginable reason, but only because they make against him! How will he prove any Copies we rely upon to be false? Is it because he is pleased to suspect them? And is an interpretation false, because the words can possibly be tortured unto some ⟨p. 67⟩other sense? Let him name me the Text, wherein any Doctrine is supposed to be delivered that is of merely supernatural revelation, of which it is not possible to to devise some other meaning, not more remote, alien, or unimaginable, than theirs, of most of the disputed Texts.

And it is really a great assuming, when a man shall adventure to pronounce so peremptorily, against the so common judgment of the Christian Church, without any colour of proof, that our copies, are false copies, our translations, our explications false, and the generality of the wisest, the most inquisitive, most pious, and most judicious assertors of the Christian cause, for so many continued ages, fools, or cheats for owning and avowing them; for no other imaginanable reason, but only because they make against him! How will he prove any Copies we rely upon to be false? Is it because he is pleased to suspect them? And is an interpretation false, because the words can possibly be tortur'd unto some ⟨p. 67⟩other sense? Let him name me the Text, wherein any Doctrine is supposed to be delivered that is of meerly supernatural revelation, of which it is not possible to to devise some other meaning, not more remote, alien, or unimaginable, than theirs, of most of the disputed Texts.

Nor indeed do we need to except that natural sentiment it self, that there is but one God, (which this Author takes such Pains to prove, as if he thought, or would make other men think, we denied it.) For tho' it is so generally acknowledged, doth he not know it is not so generally understood in the same sense? Against whom doth he write? Doth he not know they understand this Oneness in one sense, he, in another? They in such a sense as admits a Trinity, he in a sense that excludes it?