.Nw.ODI3

[ed: some text is concealed in margin] [?] of persons in ye divine essences A/ infinitenes if number is no [?] but besides ye number 3 is not arbitrary, but built upon divine [?]n one only on yt of St Jn these 3 are 1. but on ye form of baptism. [?] benediction 2 Cor: 12.14 where yt persons are reckoned without [di]stinction but yt of order & relation, & his engst ye design of ye Xtian [?] in to join any creature wth God on solemn an act of religion [?] upon wch grounds ye Xtian church has alw[ay]s believed [?]inity of Persons in ye Unity of Divine Nature Socinian argumt about ye eternal gnraon [generation] of ye Son ?hese either 'tis a proper gnraon or no, of it be not then you ? infer from theres yt ye son is [eor8orce??] if it by ther tis a ?ing from one being to being & to an eternal gnraon is a contradiction ?an Axiom yt all attributes must be understood according to ? of ye subjts so if ye subjt here be not capable of proceeding ? being to being, wtever is affirm'd of it, must bu understood so ?to destroy its nature. It appears in Sev. yt ye Son was in the ?ing & was God Jn 1.1. & after he is called ye only begotten Son ? N 14. hence wee have reason to infer his eternal gnraon ? no more meant yn such an emanation of ye Son from the ? supposes to yms [themselves] to have yt same nature & coexistances well repor- ? by ye Sun & its beins if they were permant & not successive Heresies of Nestorius & Eulycles howe're diff'rent in thems. will upon ye same ground viz: that there cd be no true nature ? must be a person & yt 2 natures cd & make one person whence ? assented there were 2 persons in X & Eulycles denyed yt there ? natures & these were not disputed de voce only but yt con- ? was really about yt truth of Xt, incarnation wch in conse- ? was rejected by both of them.

Docr of Trinity & Transubs: compar'd pt 2d. I suppose written by Dr Tillotson.