I Was amazed at such a Letter as I re­ceived from your Lordship, and some of my Brethren:—I assure your Lordship, I have as hearty Designs to serve God, and Religion, and the Church too, as any of you, and aim'd at nothing else in my Sermon, but to vindicate Christianity, and our common Faith, from the bold Ob­jections of some modern Deists and Soci­nians, and particularly from a late Book called, Christianity not Mysterious. I perceived at our first Meeting, that few of my Bre­thren then present, had troubled them­selves with those things, or with the reading those sorts of Books, so much as my self, and therefore could not so well Judge either of the manner how, or the reason why, they should be answered: When I am satisfied that it is for the Honour of God, and the Service of Chri­stianity, as well as for the peace and safe­ty of the Church, not to consider or answer our Adversaries, but to let them [Page 2]write on, and triumph on the ruins of our Christian Faith; I will take up, and live by the wise and quiet rules of the Monk, (whether of Wirtenberg or Westminster) not to trouble my self or the World with impertinent Studying, or Writing, but to go oftner into the Cellar, or the Refecto­ry, than into Library. But I was unhappi­ly put upon examining, and managing this Controversy, as formerly the Popish, by my Superiors of the greatest Note and Eminence; and my present Lord of Can­terbury lately desired me to answer the fore mentioned Book of Mr. Toland's, and 'twas against this I chiefly directed my Sermon, and that with a design to publish it. In order to these ends I ap­plied my self to consult, and read care­fully the best Antiquity, from whence I have taken all my Thoughts and No­tions about those Matters; and this I sup­pose to be the best Method, to take the Controversy as it lies there, before it fell into the Hands of Nice School men, who perplex and entangle every thing. I am very willing to learn further of my [Page 3]more learned Brethren of Westminster, but am loath to be injured by the Mistakes and Misunderstandings of any, and in­deed of One or Two of them, from whence your Lordship and others have received some mistaken Accounts, and undue Prejudices against my Sermon on Trinity Sunday; they, it seems, had drawn up a Paper, and were order'd to write to me, and to acquaint me with those things that were objected against it, and this was a fair and right Method; and since you were not satisfied with what we talked, as I thought you had, I de­sired this might be pursued; but upon this, your Lordship and they thought fit, for some secret Reasons, to alter these Measures at another Meeting, which had been agreed on before; so that I cannot have the favour to get a Copy or sight of that Paper, but am inform'd by those who saw it, that 'tis about these Three things, The Quotation out of Bi­shop Pierson, the word Equivocal, and something about Specifical and Numerical Essence; which latter was never men­tion'd [Page] [...].Theod. Abnca­ra, quoted by Bishop Pierson, and to be found in Bibli. Patr. Ignat. Epist. ad Ephes. [...]. Et sic tenus Deus Pater ostenditur,Iren. L. 5. qui est super omnia, & per omnia, & in omnibus, super omnia quidem Pater, & Ipse est Caput Christi. [...].Athanas. contr. Sabel. Gregal.—ad Adelp.—ad Serap. [...]. [...]. [...].De Sp. Sancti Basil. O [...]a [...]. 27. contra Sabell. Greg. Naz. O [...]at. 29. [...]. [...].Epiphan. Hae­res. 57. [...].Euseb. de Eccl. Theol. l. 1. c. 11. Ib. Id. l. 1. c. 17. Id. l. 2. c. 7. [...]. [...]. [...]. Ideo autem dicitur Deus Pater quia ipse est ex quo—Ambros. de dignat. Con. Hu. Non enim Patri adimitur quod Deus Unus est,Hilar. de Trin. c. 1. quia & Filius Deus sit, ob id unus Deus quia ex se Deus.August. de Trin. l. 6. c. 9. —Tanquam hoc insinuare voluerit, (Joh. 17.3. quâ solus Pater verus Deus est. [Page]—Hinc Justino,Bull. Defens. Fid. Nican. p. 433. caeterisq. scriptoribus An­te-Nicaenis solenne est Deum Patrem [...] appellare nunc Deum absolute, nunc unum illum Deum, nunc Deum Patrem juxta Scripturas, 1 Cor. 8.4. Eph. 4.6. Joan. 17.3. Deniq. veteres Deum Patrem eo quod Prin­cipium Causa,Id. p. 438. Auctor & Fons Eilii sit, Unum illum, & solum appellare non sunt veriti, sic enim ipsi Patres Nicaeni, &c. Unus enim Deus ac Pater omnium appella­tur,Petav. Dog. Theol. l. 3. c. 4. Ep. 4.6. propter Originis ac Principii prae­rogativam. Ingenue tradimus [...] Dei nomen Pa­tri proprie ascribi.Calv. in Proth. Va [...]e [...]t Gent. Z [...]. de tribus Eloh. l. 5. c. 5 Patrem sic vocari Unum, & solum Deum [...] quia totius est Deitatis sons. Solum Patrem, & summum Deum, utpote Deitatis foutem.Con en. Resut. Irenie. Irenie. Christus Filium Dei se nominavit (& Deum Patrium) & non Deum,Cardinal Cusa in Cribrat. Al­coran, l. 1 c. 11. cum nominatio Dei sit nominatio Patris Christi. Observandum autem est,Flac. [...]v [...]ic. Claris Scrip­tur. in Voce Deus. quod plerum (que) Paulus in suis Epistolis nomen Dei Patri, Domini autem Christo seu Edio Dei tribuit. — Ideo quod in my­sterio Redemptionis Patri summa dignitas ut ve­ro Deo tribuitur. — Haec est causa quod in Novo Testamento plerumque tantum prima Persona vo­cetur Deus. [Page 4]in Discourse, but only the Two former; I shall therefore endeavour to give you full satisfaction about those.

1. As to the First, The Quotation out of Bishop Pierson, to charge that as un­faithfully made, which it seems was done, is to question not only my Honesty, and my Understanding, but even my Eye-sight too: The Words were these, The Name of God taken absolutely, is often in Scripture spoken of the Father, and in many Places is to be ta­ken particularly for the Father, — and from hence he is stiled One God, the True God, the On­ly True God; and this, he says further, is a most necessary truth, for the avoiding Multiplication and Plurality of Gods, he laying the Unity mainly here, as I have done; tho' I take in also Unity of Essence and Essential Perfe­ctions, and of inseparable Emanation from the Father, and inexistence in one another. I did not wonder at other Cavils made a­gainst my Sermon, when I heard of that made against this Quotation: Any one that has Bishop Pierson on the Creed by him, may examine whether those Words [Page 5]be not there, and whether the Sense be any thing alter'd by the abreviature; but since a Learned Elder Brother upon my repeating those Words of Bishop Pierson, seemed to dislike what the Bishop said, and to speak against it, so that so great a Man would hardly have escaped Censure, had he now Preached them; and since I laid so great a stress in my Sermon upon the same No­tion, That the Term God, and one God, was predicated eminently, and absolutely of God the Father in Scripture, and that this was observed by a great many others, as well as by Bishop Pierson, and is a very neces­sary Truth, as he says, for avoiding Mul­tiplication, and plurality of Gods, and so for answering the Charge of Tri­theism, I shall now produce sufficient Vouchers, and undeniable Authori­ties for it, and give you on the other side, some of those Quotations, which I did not think so fit to repeat in the Pulpit, and they I hope, if duly con­sidered, will set this matter right, and clear both Bishop Pierson, and the Quo­tation [Page 6]out of him, and my self, and the Notion I proposed.

2. The Second thing objected is the word Equivocal, this was the great Of­fence, and indeed it was a very high one, as charged upon me, viz. That I should say that Christ, and the Holy Ghost, were God only Equivocally; but this is the falsest thing, and the greatest Mi­stake in the World; I told your Lordship so at first, when you mention'd it to me, and I do now most solemnly profess it to be so, even in Verbo Sacerdotis, since that has been put to me: I cannot think any of my most prejudiced Hearers will affirm that I said those Words, if they do, I am sure 'tis not true; there are not any such in my Notes, which I shewed and read quickly after to Your Lordship and Dr. B—, and also to Dr. Br—, at Dr. H—k's House. This I thought might have given satisfaction to Your Lordship, and to them, and I supposed it had done so, at the last Chapter just before I went to the Commencement. I little expected to have heard any thing [Page 7]more of this again, but in my absence it seems you thought fit to renew it, and I shrewdly guess by whose Insti­gation, by those who are of late very angry, and concern'd for the loss of something else, besides the Christian Faith.

But I did use the word Equivocal, and that even about the Term God, and the Trinity and Unity; and this sounds ill, and gave occasion to some of my Hearers, and especially to my Two offended Brethren, as the Letter calls them, to conceive, and to collect, for it can be no more, that I asserted that Christ, and the Holy Ghost were God only Equi­vocally: I cannot help their conceiving or imagining, or collecting this; I am sure no such Words were said by me, nor any thing from whence any such Con­sequence or Collection should follow, or be made by them, they might as well have conceived and collected, and as truly have charged me, that I should say that God the Father was God only Equivocally, as Christ or the Holy Ghost: There was the same Reason and [Page 8]ground for this Charge from the word Equivocal, and from any thing I said a­bout it, as from the other, and it related as much to the one as to the other. What I said, I read to them afterwards, That the Word God, and his being One, and Three, and when it is said, God the Father is one God, and that all the Three persons are one God, that those Terms are not to be taken in the fame sense, the same respect and consideration, but in different, and so are Equivocal. I think no Orthodox Divine of Learning and Understanding in those matters will gainsay this, nothing being more com­mon among them, than the word God to be taken either [...], or [...], Es­sentially or Personally, or sometimes Eminently and Absolutely for God the Father, sometimes for the Divine Per­sons together, and sometimes for one a­lone. Crellius indeed is very angry, and displeased with these Distinctions, these different and Equivocal Senses, and he had good reason, for they are the true and the only Answer to his laboured Book, De Uno Deo; [Page] Dixerit forte aliquis aliter accipi vocem Deus cum singulis Personis praedicatur, aliter cum absolute ponitur; illic hypostatice sumi, seu personaliter, hic essentialiter, equidem non crediderim acutiores ex Adversariis sic respon­suros. Crellius de Uno Deo. L. 1. S. 1. Cap. 1. Dei nomen interdum pro Persona quapiam sumi velut prima in qua Naturae totius est principium, interdum vero Naturam significare nulla in certa persona subsistentem, sed in a­liqua trium, vel in ipsis tribus vagâ, & infini­tâ notione comprehensis. Petav. Dogm. Theol. L. 3. C. 3. Dei quippe nomen alias communiter, & [...] alias secundum proprietatem ultimi prin­cipii, atque fontis, equo cetera personae proficis­cuntur. Id. L. 3. C. 2. Nomen Deus proprie ac directe Divinitatem, Naturamve Divinam indicat, adsignificat au­tem eandem ut in quapiam persona subsisten­tem, nullam de tribus expresse designans, sed confuse, & universe interdum vero Deus cer­tam de tribus personam determinat, ut Da­mascen observat. ut in Ps. 44. Unxit se Deus, ubi Pater intelligitur. Id. L. 3. C. 4. [Page]Si Pater intelligatur per Deum summum, Dei Nomen & Notionem usurpari [...] non [...]. Id. L. 3. C. 9. Nec aliud evincunt Crelliana Sophismata quam quod ultro damus Catholici, non esse a­lium Deum summum ex quo omnia, quique sit à nullo praeter Unum Patrem. Id. L. 3. C. 2. —Quare solius, vel Unius & si quae sunt aliae notionis ejusdem duplicitur usurpari possunt, aut secundum Personarum proprietatem, aut secundum communem naturam, illo modo solus Pater Deus est. Ib. Nam voces Jehovah, Deus, Adonai, &c. vel sumuntur proprie, & communiter & sic nunquam vel Filius, vel Spiritus Sanctus distin­guitur à Jehovah Deo, aut Adonai, vel sumun­tur, improprie, & specialiter, & sic saepius po­nuntur pro solo Patre, adeoque Filius, & Spi­ritus Sanctus ab eo distinguntur. Inepte au­tem argumentatur, a significatione vocis re­strictae ad communis significationis exclusionem. Bisterfield contra Crell. in Synop. [Page 8]I shall put some of his Words, and [Page 9]of Petavius's both, upon this occasion, on the other side, which will give a great deal of light to this matter, of the Term God being taken differently and ambigu­ously. Neither of my Brethren, nor your Lordship objected any thing against the word Equivocal, thus used by me, when I read the Passage to you, with what immediately went before, and what just followed after, which did sufficiently ex­plain my meaning about it; and this my Brother H—k who heard it, expresly declared at that time; and it seems did so again at the meeting in Chapter be­fore your Lordship and my Brethren then present, which might have spared you the trouble, one would have thought, of the severe Letter you sent me.

The word Equivocal should not have provoked you so much, which was so innocently used by me, and so signi­cantly as I thought, and very much to the purpose, viz. to take off the Contra­diction objected to us by our Socinian Adversaries, with so much triumph, and so unanswerably as they pretend of our [Page 10]holding One God, and Three Gods, when we say, The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet there is but one God: If this be said in the same sense and consideration, it will be very hard to get off from the Contradiction of affirming and denying the same thing, in the same sense: But if the Affirma­tion and Denyal be not in the same sense and meaning, but in different, which I take to be the meaning of Equivocal, then the Contradiction vanish­es, and is presently answered, according to that Maxim of the School-men, Ubi est diversa significatio, non est contradictio affir­mantis & negantis, Aequivocatio enim impedit contradictionem, Aquin. S. P. 1. Q. 13. From hence I took the Hint of this offensive word Equivocal, which yet is often either expresly and litterally, or in the same sense to be found in the School-men, and in other Divines of all sorts, on the like Occasion, (applyed to God and the Tri­nity) as I shall largely show in the Quo­tations on the other side[Page] Sicut in divinis non dicitur generatio uni vocè cum generatione que est in Creaturis, sic quoad Naturam per generationem communicatam est ibi plusquam Univocatio, sed quoad proprie­tatem personam constituentem formalitèr est ibi quasi Aequicatio, Durand. in Sentent. l. 1. d. 4. q. 1. Vide Qu. 2. Utrum Deus genuit Deum, ubi sic Deus importat suppositum habens divinam naturam. — Deus est terminus discretus, et Deus est terminus communis — alii dicunt, quod hoc nomen Deus proprie loquendo, non est universale nec singulare, sed habet aliquid de ratione universalis, et aliquid de ratione singu­laris. — Cum hoc nomen Deus stet pro suppo­sito habente divinitatem, potest de eo aliquid verè enunciari pro uno supposito, et negari pro alio — Ubi in unâ naturâ sunt plura suppo­sita de termino significante naturam in concre­to possunt contradictoria verificari ratione alte­rius et alterius suppositi, ut haec Deus gene­rat et Deus non generat — dicendum quod verum est uno modo et uniformiter accepta ut­pote si referant tantum Essentiam vel tantum Personam, sed si referant utramque simul, utrumque potest falsificari de altera parte. — [Page] Ideò cum Deus in antecedenti stet pro personâ, eodem modo stat in consequente relativo cum dicitur Deus qut est personaliter Pater, quod non est verum, aut Deus qui non est Pater personaliter, & hoc est verum; et si inferat ergo non tantum est Unus Deus, non sequi­tur absolutè, quia plus negatur in consequen­te quam in antecedente. — Si autem inferre­tur cum determinatione, benè sequeretur di­cendo sic, Deus genuit Deum qui est Deus Pater, ergo non est tantum Unus Deus per­sonalitèr, quod verum est, Durandus in Sen­tent. Ib. Nomen substantiae aequivocatur apud nos cum quandoque significat Essentiam, quandoque Hypostasin. Aquin. S. P. 1. Q. 29. Nec Univocè nec pure aequivocè, sed ana­logicè dicitur Deus in praemissis tribus signi­ficationibus. Id. Qu. 13. Art. 10. Sed phi­losophus largo modo accipit aequivoca — Ib. Nomen substantiae est aequivocum nam po­test, & naturam, & substantiam significare, Suarez. T. 1. Lib. 3. Propter aequivocationem vocabuli substantiae quia interdum sumitur pro essentia divina, in­terdum pro quocunque ente reali — Molina [Page] Comment. in Thom. qu. 29. Artic. 2. disp. 1. An essentia dicatur de Deo et Creaturis Uni­vocè, Aequi vocè vel Analogice? Q. 29. Art. 2. Ibid. Alitèr se habent hoc nomèn essentia, sive Divinitas cum attribuitur personis, alitèr hoc nomen Deus, nam hoc nomen Deus attribuitur personis ut quod est, sive ut habens divinam naturam, et ideo habet supponere personam; hoc vero nomen essentia attribuitur personis, ut quo persona est, Alexand. Alensis. Sum. P. 1. Qu. 50. Hoc Nomen Deus nec est proprium nec appellativum, sed aliquid habet proprij aliquid appellativi, habet enim significationem proprij et suppositionem appellativi, & ita illa propo­sitio Deus generat vel generatur, partim est singularis, et partim indefinita, Ib. Iste terminus Deus positus in subjecto, supponit personaliter, & hoc quod significat essentiam personaliter, sed hoc modo falsa est haec, Deus est Trinitas, Ib. Vide Petrum Alliac. qu. 5. in prim. Sentent. Bellarmin de Christo, L. 2. C. 7, 8. [Page]Alteram principalem rationem quâ conatur probare vim verborum significare, Deum illum unum esse solum Patrem jam examinemus. Quamvis enim directè Responsionem nostram non petat, utpote qui concedamus, unum Deum á quo illa omnia solum Patrem esse, tamen ve­ritatem ipsam aggreditur, nos (que) statuimus rectè dici, Pater est unus Deus prout sumitur vox Deus, V. 4. — Rationem suam dilemmate con­firmat. Haec enim Locutio, inquit, ‘Unus ;ille Deus est Pater, vel est synecdochica, vel propria, ita ut eâ salvâ, etiam liceat dicere, unus ille Deus est Filius, unus ille Deus est Spiritus Sanctus; si statuis prius contra sic argumentari licebit, Deus ille unus est tota Trinitas, atqui Pater est Deus ille Unus, ;ergo Pater est tota Trinitas.’ Verùm hoc so­phisma nititur Aequivocatione phraseos, Deus ille Unus, vel potius vocis Deus: Nam vox Deus sumitur vel absolutè, essentialiter, & communitèr sic, Deus est Pater, Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, vel sumiter relativè, perso­naliter ac restrictè, sic Deus non est tota Trinitas: Itaque licet Pater sit Unus ille Deus, tamen non est omne id, quod est unus ille Deus. Diversus autem significandi modus [Page] quo eadem vox jam communiùs jam specialiùs sumpta sibi opponitur etiam de alijs usurpa­tur in Scripturâ. — Bisterfield de Uno Deo contra Crell. lib. 1. sect. 1. C. 2. p. 43. Bellarminus C. 2. de Christo taxat eos qui filium Dei vocant [...], oritur autem er­roris suspicio ex aequivocatione vocabuli, nam [...] duplicem sensum habet — Divinitatem considerari duplicitèr ratione sui esse, ratione modi habendi, &c. Meisneri philosoph. sobr. parte 2. sect. 1. c. 2. qu. 2. Facit tamen in Trinitate primatus ori­ginis atque ordinis — ut nomen Dei de Pa­tre Antonomasticè usurpetur, Vogelsang. ex­ercitat. Theolog. p. 353. Veruntamen aequivocè duo predicamenta Deo aptari substantiam & relationem, Junij Cath. doct. de Trin. defens. l. 1. Unus est, inquis Samosatene, Deus, ve­rissimum, sed rectè intelligendum, nam et in subjecto et in predicato positae sunt adversus imprudentiores tendiculae, nisi attenderint, et ex ijs falsa conclusio adstruitur, Deus enim aut absolutè et indeterminatè dicitur, aut etiam determinatè, priore modo de essentiâ, posterio­re [Page] de aliquâ unâ persona dicitur, Secundum priorem modum Christus dicebat Deus est Spi­ritus, Joan. 4.24. Secundum posteriorem Paulus unus Pater omnium, Eph. 4.6. Hic autem Deum absolutè & indeterminatè enun­cias, de essentiâ igitur praedicatio est & ita accipimus, tu de personâ accipis Aequivocè & idem concludis contra praedicationum & ar­gumentationum leges, Id. Def. 2. Obj. Quod Unum est id Trium esse non potest Deus Unus est, Deus igitur Trinus esse non potest? R. Illudis Samosatene, tum equivocatione (ut vulgo dicitur) tum etiam elenchi ignora­tione — Aequivocationem committis cum di­cis Unum, unum, inquies, ecquid minùs aequi­vocum esse quam unum potest? tibi fortè non videtur, sed tamen si veritati credis, me de­monstrantem audies, unum duobus modis di­citur, absolutè et relatè — &c. Ib. p. 78. Ob. Non possunt contraria gradibus ex­cellentibus in eodem subjecto simul existere, De­us autem Unum et Trinum esse tam sunt con­traria quam Spiritum esse et Corpus, aeternum et non aeternum, Deus ergo Unus & Trinus esse non potest. [Page] R. Majorem ut negemus absit, sed Assump­tio tua aequivocatione & elenchi ignoratione fallit, eâdem planè quam in superiore tuâ argumenta­tione reteximus. Junii Defens. 2. P. 80. Ob. Quod expressum est imagine & imago exprimens, non sunt idem, Christus est imago Dei invisibilis, Christus ergo et Deus invisibilis non sunt idem. R. Aequivocatio in nomine idem manifesta est, nam aut idem essentia dicitur neutro gene­re, aut idem personâ masculino. Ib. P. 87. Ob. Quod ejusdem est aeternitatis et ma­jestatis cum Deo, nihil omnino ab eo accepit, non vitam, non gloriam. Filius ejusdem est — R. Majorem Samosatene de industriâ facis aequivocam, — Deum non ignoras à nobis aut absolutè de essentiâ dici, — aut relatè de unâ ali­quâ personâ. Ib. P. 90. — Praetereà nomen Dei, quod essentiale, personaliter accipis aequivocè. P. 91. Ob. Marc. 13.32. Fallis, — vocis Pa­ter aequivocatione, — Patris nomen hoc loco essentiale ac non personale est. — Fefellit te et hypotheseos et aequivocationis illius ignoratio, quam aequivocationem post resurrectionem quo­que servavit Christus dicens non vestrum est [Page] scire quae Pater posuit in potestate ipsius, Act. 1.7. Ib. P. 96. Ad Obj. de Christi subjectione, 1 Cor. 15.24. ex quo Christum sibi subjectum fore, sic ait omnino constat nomen Christi de personâ sive in sese, sive in Mysterio enunciatum, dici aequivoce. Ib. P. 101. & P. 182. Antecedentis duo sunt aequivoca, primùm enim Deus appellatur Pater, aut essentialiter respectu creaturarum, aut personaliter respectu Filij et relationis internae, &c. Id. Defens. 3. P. 185. Now that there is necessarily understood this la­titude of Variety, in the sence of several of the Words of the (Athanasian) Creed, is apparent from the consent of those that do subtilize this Mistery to the utmost curiosity, for it is impossible for them or any else to think, that the Godhead of the whole Trinity is one in the same sence, that the Father considered alone is one, or the Son and Holy Ghost so considered. — So when the Father is said to be omnipotent, the Son omnipotent, and the Holy Ghost omnipotent, it is evident that omnipotent has not the same sence in all, for the Father has the power of Eternal Generation. — And the like may be said of the term God; by which if you un­derstand that which is first of all, in such a sence as that all else is from him, and he from none, the Son and Spirit cannot be said to be God in this signification, because the Father is not from them, but they from the Father. More's Mistery of Godliness, Book 9. Cap. 2. And we must still profess, that we take none of those words to be proper, formal, univocal terms. Baxters Cath. Theology, Sect. 1. [Page 10], and the Pages following.

[Page 11]Whether also this might not be ap­plyed to defend the Athanasian Creed, The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal, and yet not Three Eternals, but One Eternal, as well as Aquinas his taking them adjectively, and substantively, which Petavius dislikes, (being willing to allow tres Aeterni, & tres habentes Deitatem, & tres Divini) and whi­ther also in those Scholastick Questions, and sayings, Utrum nomina Essentialia ap­proprianda personis, & nomina Essentialia in divinis concreta nonnunquam pro Essentia, ali­quando pro una persona, aliquando pro tribus supponunt. I offer to the Consideration of my more Learned Brethren. This I hope will, if not justifie, at least excuse the word; and if any of them will please to teach me a better way to take off the objected Contradiction, I promise never to make use of that word again.

But after all, could Malice it self, tho' never so blind, if it had but Ears, and heard that Sermon of mine, charge me with saying, that Christ and the Ho­ly [Page 12]Ghost were God only Equivocally, and not properly, truly and naturally, when I so often, and so fully, plainly and directly asserted the contrary, thro' the whole Sermon, and in several such passages as these following, ‘That the Mystery of Christian Faith lay in God the Father's having a Son, and an Ho­ly Spirit, distinct Persons from himself, the one begotten of him from all Eter­nity, and so his only Son, the other proceeding from him and the Son both, and these two still in the Fa­ther, Naturally, and Inseparably uni­ted to him, as to the Fountain of their being, one with him in the same Di­vine Nature and Essence, and all three together contriving and accomplishing the Redemption of mankind. — That God the Father Almighty hath one only begotten Son, of the same Na­ture and Essence with himself, Who is the Brightness of his Glory, and the express Image of his Person: And that there is also a Holy Ghost pro­ceeding from both, and sent by both, [Page 13]who hath the Characters and Attri­tributes of Divinity plainly ascribed to him, and who is joined with the Fa­ther and the Son in the Office of Bap­tism, and in the Form of Christian Blessing, and against whom the most unpardonable sin may be commit­ted..’

‘That the Son and Holy Ghost have the same Divine Nature and Essence with the Father, derived and commu­nicated to them. Tho' the Name of God taken absolutely, is eminently predicated of God the Father in Scrip­ture, and he is called God, the One God, eminently, tho' not exclusively, (To us there is One God the Father, — I I believe in One God the Father Almigh­ty, &c.) yet the other two Persons having the Divine Nature, and the Divine Attributes and Perfections be­longing to them, may each of them properly be called God, and the Di­vinity does certainly belong to each of them.’

[Page 14]After all these Passages and Expressi­ons in my Sermon, which I hope they who have not a memory only on one side will please to remember and owne, besides, the whole drift and design of it, which was to lay down as plainly, and to vindicate as strongly as I could, the Mystery of Christian Faith, and of the Blessed Trinity; could any fair and candid Hearer, or indeed any one with­out those Epithets have the least rea­son or pretence to charge me with as­serting, that Christ and the Holy Ghost were God only Equivocally, and not truly and properly, or could they upon hearing, and misunderstanding that word as applyed to the Terms God, Trinity and Unity, One and Three, God's be­ing One in Person in one sense, and Three in Person in another; could they with any more Reason, and not with­out the greatest Mistake imaginable, and one would think a wilful one, (tho' I am willing to think otherwise, having never given either of them rea­son for that) charge this as belonging [Page 15]to Christ and the Holy Ghost, and not as much to God the Father, and the whole Trinity, when I used and apply­ed this Term in general to the Name of God, his being One, and Three, be­ing taken either Essentially or Personal­ly, sometimes Absolutely and Eminently, for One Person singly, sometimes for all the Three Persons together, and so upon the account of those different significations these terms were Equivocal, Hononymous and Ambiguous, as many, I have shown, and particularly a Lutheran Professor inHomonymia in voce unus — in vocabulo tres. Botsac. Anti-Crellius, Lib. 2. Sect. 1. C. 1. Expressa latet ambiguitas in voce Deus, quae modò personali­tèr, usurpatur modò essentiàli­tèr, Id. Lib. 2. S. 1. C. 7. answer to Crellius had long agoe asserted before me, and this only to take off the Contradiction of One and Three, and to answer that Jewish, Pagan, Mahometan, Sabellian, Samosatenian, Photinian, Ar­rian, Macedonian, Socinian, Muggleto­nian Objection of Tritheism, against the Doctrine of the Trinity.

The Father is the only self-existent, unoriginated Being, whom the Ancients call [...] of the other two, and so in the words of a Right Reverend and Excellent Person, God in the highest sense, [Page 16]whom the Scriptures, Creeds,[Page] Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem. Orientales Ecclesiae omnes pene ita tradunt, credo in unum Deum Patrem Omnipotentem. Ruffin. in Symbol. [...], — Irenaeus, l. 1. c. 2. Cum teneamus autem nos regulam veritatis, i. e. quia sit unus Deus omnipotens, qui om­nia condidit per verbum suum, Id. c. 19. — In unum Deum credentes fabricatorem Coeli et Terrae, et omnium quae ijs sunt, per Christum Jesum Dei Filium, Id. L. 3. C. 4. Regula est autem fidei, — illa scilicet qua creditur unum omnino Deum esse, nec alium praeter Mundi Conditorem, qui universa de ni­hilo produxit, per verbum suum primo omnium imissum, id verbum Filium ejus appellatum. Tertull. praescr. adv. Haeres. C. 13. Nos unicum quidem Deum credimus sub hac tamen dispensatione, quam [...] dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et Filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt. — Id. adv. Praxeam C. 2. [...]. Symbol. Vetustis. Ec­cles. Hieros. apud Cyrill in Cateches. 6. [Page] [...], — Eüseb-Caesar Confes. in Synod. Nicaen apud Socrat. H. E. l. 1. c 8. [Page 16]and Chri­stian Offices[Page] Haec Patris [...] in omnibus Catholicae Ecclesiae Lyturgijs hodie agnoscitur, nam et in [...] Deum Patrem, [...] (ut Ju­stinus loquitur) glorificamus, et preces pleras (que) ad ipsum dirigimus. Bull. Def. Fid. Ni­caen P. 208. Veteri ex usu plerae (que) preces ad Patrem re­feruntur, at (que) ita decretum legimus in Cartha­ginensi tertiâ Synodo, Canone 23. ut cum ad altare assistitur, semper ad Patrem dirigatur oratio. Petav. Dogm. Theolog. de Trin. L. 3. C. 7. Instabunt illi forte cum quibus nunc agimus, et dicent se idem aliquo modo statuere, Pa­trem enim solum ideo vocari Deum verum, quia fons sit Divinatis, ac porro quandam prae Filio, ac Spiritu Sancto praerogativam ratione Divi­nitatis habens, siquidem Filius, ac Spiritus Sanctus Divinam Essentiam ab ipso habeant, ipse á Nemine, quam ob causam Patrem no­minatim [...] appellant, et eâ ratione Filio, [Page] et Spiritui sancto opponunt, sed qui ita respon­dent, vel sibi contradicunt, vel nihil dicunt, nu­da (que) nobis verba pro rebus obtrudunt. Crell. de Uno Deo, L. 1. C. 1. Dei vero Nomen aut omnibus, aut pleris (que) omnibus primam omnium rerum causam signi­ficat, aut quod à nullo sit, et à quo sint om­nia, id quidem convenit [...], si vel causae no­men proprie sumatur, vel cum creaturis confe­ratur, cum enim creatus non fuerit, per eum omnia quaecun (que) sunt facta, sed si collatio in­stituatur Patris cum [...], seu Filio, quia a nullo est Pater, a Patre est Filius, propterea Pater peculiari quadam ratione Dei nomen sibi ven­dicat, nam si Dei nomen ens designat quod a nullo est, a quo caetera, id Patri con­venit non modo ratione Naturae Divinae, quae nullius causae proprie dictae sit effe­ctum cum omnium creaturarum sit causa, quo sensu etiam [...] Dei Nomen participant, sed etiam ratione Personae quae ab alia nulla ducit orginem ullo modo cum ab ea, aeterna quadam, et incomprehensibili ratione pro­cedant [...] et Spiritus sanctus. Placaei re­futat. Crell. p. 252. Vide Crell. Ib. Deus summus vel Essentiae, et Naturae, vel [Page] (si ita loqùi fas est) muneris ratione, priore modo Deus summus est quicun (que) praeditus est essentia divina, posteriore is tantum qui cum sit praeditus essentia divina personam, et partes supremi at (que) independentis totius Mundi Mo­narchiae sustinet in Negotio salutis nostrae, i. e. Pater. Ib. p. 326. Ut igitur formaliter Respondeam, Deo al­tissimo nihil dignius, nihil excellentius ulla ra­tione cogitari potest, hoc verissime dicitur de Deo altissimo comparato cum omnibus alijs en­tibus; at si Deus altissimus, hoc est una per­sona comparetur, cum Deo altissimo, h. e. aliâ Personâ divinâ quae cum ipsa sunt Deus altissimus distinctione opus est, est enim excel­lentia essentialis et excellentia personalis. Ib. p. 28. Ex veterum sententia cui ratio communis suffragatur, si duo in divinis essent Ingenita, sive principia a se pendentia, consequens foret ut non modo Pater suâ privaretur [...] qua Divinitatem à seipso hoc est, à nullo alio habet, verum etiam ut duo Dij necessario statuerentur, contra positâ subordinatione, qua Pater solus a seipso Deus, Filius vero de Deo Patre, Deus esse docetur, putarunt Doctores tum illam Pa­tris [Page] [...], tum Divinam Monarchiam in tuto iri collocatam; quod idem et ad tertiam Divi­nitatis personam, Spiritum nempe sanctum ex­tendi voluerunt, quem quod a Patre per Fi­lium ipse suam habeat originem, [...], sive tres Deos neutiquam inducere crediderunt, Bull. Def. Fid. Nic. Sect. 4. Vocabulum Deus duobus modis in sacris scrip­turis repraesentari deprehenditur, ut absolutè pri­mum inoriginatum, et à nullo alio esse habens, à seipso ita subsistens, ut prorsus originem es­sendi aliundé non agnoscat, omnia à se et ex se habeat; inoriginatum, et origo ac principium absolutè omnium eorum sit, quae in Coelo et in Terrâ sunt, etiam ipsius Filij et Spiritus Pa­ter est, qui emphaticè, passim constanter et in Novo Testamento ita vocatur, Joan. 17. 1 Cor. 8. Ephes. 1.3, 4. Apoc. 1.6. et in omnibus fermè Novi Testamenti libris; ne semel autem toto novo Testamento [...] Deus, expresso textu ad Patrem, Filium et Spiri­tum sanctum simul determinatur cum unus Deus appellatur, ut ista tria unum illum Deum esse dicatur, sed ad priorem sensum in voce Dei â Spiritu sancto intendi palam sit, in veteri Te­stamento unus est altissimus Creator omnium [Page] ait Siracides cap. 1. & alibi. 2. Ut proxime ex et ab illo primo originatum, derivatum, de­ductum, ortum illi debens, etiam summum ens, sed ortum et derivatum, proxima veluti summi illius subsistentis propago, et emanatio ut ve­teres dixerunt, genitura et spiratura ejus, in esse, nomine, auctoritate, opere, attributis et cultu Patri par, hoc modo Dei vocem sumendo Deus etiam Filius et Spiritus Dei est. Henricus Nicolai Professor Lutheranus in Metho­do Trinitatis. Thesi. 47. Jehovah deducitur ab Hava vel Hajah, quod significat esse, cum Deus sit Essentia omnium Essentiarum — Nec incommodè sta­tuitur hanc vocem ex c. 3. Exod. v. 14. ubi Deus dicit Ehejeh Ascher Ehejeh — solus Deus esse suum habet à seipso vel rectiùs est suum esse, reliqua entia dependent, ab hoc summo ente, solus Deus est [...], Gerhard de Naturâ Dei, loci com­munes. [Page 16]call so absolutely, and by way of Eminence and Prerogative. The Son is produced of the Father, and so is not [...], or God in that sence, as the Father who is from none, but is God of God, and is very God, as having the Di­vine Nature and Perfections naturally belonging to them, but derived and com­municated from the Father, as the Holy Ghost from both: So that the one is Deus Ingenitus, the other Deus Genitus, and the third Deus procedens; all Divines al­low that the words are taken thus diffe­rently, and in these several senses and meanings, and why then may they not be called Aequivocal? SinceSum. p. 1. q. 13. Thomas Aqui­nas says, Quicquid praedicatur de aliquibus se­cundum idem nomen, & non secundum ean­dem rationem, praedicatur de ijs aequivoce. But Deus as it signifies a self-existent, unori­ginated Being, and is often taken in that sense only by Divines,Solus Deus [...], Gerard. loc. com. de natu­ra Del. Deum esse a seip­so, hoc est ne (que) ab alio, ne (que) ex alio. Amesij Medul. Theol. l. 1. Deus qui semper est, nec habet aliunde princi­pium ipse sui ori­go est, suae (que) cau­sa jubstantiae. Hieron. in E­pist. ad Eph. c. 3. [...]. Helych Suidas. is predicated on­ly of God the Father, and not secundum eandem racionem, or upon the same Ac­count of the other two Divine Persons, [Page 17]neither of which are self existent and un­originated,The Learned Mr. Hill calls the Father Ori­ginal God, p. 163. Vindi­cation of Primi­tive Fathers; & p. 113. takes the term Mind (relating to the Trinity) equivocally in different sen­ses. The Father a­lone is Origi­nally that Deity which Christ origi­nally is not, for Christ is God by being of God, Hooker's Eccles. Pol. l. 5. §. 54. So Dr. More in the same place forequoted. nor God in the highest sense of [...], but the one is God begotten, [...], not [...]; and the other God proceeding, [...], as they are frequently called, but both properly, and truly, and naturally, and eternally God in these senses, both having the true Divine Nature and the same Divine Essence with the Father, be­longing to them, and so being [...] with him, but yet he being the fountain of Divinity, the Principium, Fons, [...], &c. of the other two who were produ­ced from him, sent by him, and some are not afraid to say sub-ordinate to himVide Bull de Subordinatione Filij ad Patrem Defens. Fid. Ni­caen. Sect. 9., is called eminently and absolutely, and by way of Excellence and Prerogative, the one God, and in the words forequo­ted, God in the highest sence, which is a Notion Crellius was extreamly angry and provoked atInstabunt, &c., but others of known Or­thodoxy pleased with, as an Answer to him and to Tritheism. This tho' not said thus expresly in my Sermon, yet was all could be aimed at and designed, and the [Page 18]utmost possible meaning of the word Equivocal, as used by me, which was but once transiently mention'd, and applyed to the Terms God, One and Three, Deus unus et trinus, to take off the contradiction of them.Ambiguitas tollenda nominis hujus sum­mus Deus. Etenim si is intelligatur sum­mus, qui a nullo ducit originem, cum ab eo ducant Personae caeterae hoc sensu solum Pa­arem summum esse Deum non negamus, hoc est primum principium, & supremum ad quod revocantur omnia, — sin ille summus appellatur Deus cujus natura & [...] est summa Deitas, sive ab nullo altero, sive ab altero communicata, hac ratione non minus Filius, ac Spiritus Sanctus summus est De­us, quam Pater tametsi diverso modo Deita­tem obtineant. Petav. Dogm. Theolog. de Trin L. 3. C. 1. Petavius expresly al­lows the ambiguity or equivocal meaning of the word God, or chief and highest God in the very sense before-men­tion'd; and I know none, but Sabellians and Socinians, can have rea­son to dislike it, because off that terrible Objection of theirs against the Trinity, that God, and Divine Being, or Person, are convertible and equipollent, and there­fore if there be three Divine Persons and Beings, there must be three Gods, where­as in one, i. e. the highest sense, (of [...],) the word God is only convertible with, and equipollent to God the Father, and in the sense which is given of it by [Page 19]severalMahometes Azoar 11. Al­corani, dic ille Deum unum esse, qui nec genuit, nec generatus est.—Deum esse ens necessario existens, cujus esse impossibile est ut sit ab alio, Avicenna. Nos voce Dei intelligere ens illud quod caete­ris omnibus ex­istentiam dedit, ipsum suam a nullo accepit. Cler. Pneuma­tolog. c. 2., belongs only to him; and Melancthon therefore wisely and designed­ly changes the definition of God for the like reasonUt autem de­scriptionem ali­quam Dei tene­amus, conseram duas, alteram mutilam Plato­nis, alteram in­tegram quae in Ecclesiâ tradi­ta est, & ex baptismi verbis dicitur. Plato­nica haec est, Deus est mens aeterna, — sic igitur haec alte­ra descriptio, Deus est Essen­tia spiritualis, intelligens, ae­terna, Me­lancthon. .

I hope upon the reading of this, both my offended Brethren (tho' I think I am the offended Brother, I am sure I am the Iujured one, and if the Scandal be so general according to your Letter, the Injury is the greater) will be sensi­ble of their great Mistake, and of their ungrounded Charge and Accusation a­gainst me, and will recollect from whence it arose, from misunderstanding and misapplying the word Equivocal, and will therefore think themselves bound both in Honour and Conscience to make a proper Reparation and Satisfaction, to own their Mistake, and beg my Par­don. I hope also your Lordship, and the rest of my Brethren, will think this reasonable, and perswade them to it, else I must appeal to the World, and publish this my Vindication as well as my Sermon; and if the doing this oc­casion any further Quarrel and Disturb­ance, [Page 20]they who are the true cause of it must answer for it both to God and Man, and otherwise I shall think it a design to blow up a Contention very unseasonably at this time, and to breed a Quarrel among our selves, and then I can guess at the Secret which lyes at the bottom, and in Cyphers 'tis only HC. and JB.

I used all possible Caution in my Ser­mon to prevent all this, and opposed no body but the Deists and Socinians; and 'tis hard when we are defending the common Cause and Faith of Chri­stianity, against those that our Brethren and Confederates should out of Pique and Prejudice strike in with the publick Enemy, and help to do their work for them.

I used no other Terms throughout all my Sermon in speaking of the Di­vine Persons and Blessed Trinity, but those used commonly by the Church, according to the King's Directions; and I am sure my Doctrine is entirely agree­able to that of the Primitive Church, [Page 21]satisfied in it, as in Christianity; for 'tis Christianity as distinct from Natural Re­ligion, and I could dye, and suffer Martyrdom for it: If all the Pains I have taken to understand and defend it, meet with no other Reward here but Scandal and Calumny, Noise, Cla­mour and Trouble, I doubt not but the great God, and my Blessed Saviour, and their Holy Spirit, whose Glory and Honour I have sincerely aimed at, whose Faith and Religion I have en­deavoured to defend, will support me comfortably at present, and recompense me sufficiently hereafter.

3. As to the other thing charged or hinted, about Specifical and Numerical Essence, two of my Brethren who saw the Paper could not well remember any thing about it, nor can I guess, and imagine; for the words were but just named, with an — hence the distin­ction of a Specifical and Numerical Essence — I asserted not either, nor do understand any great difference between 'em, nor think particular Essence to be any thing [Page] [...], Basil. Epist. 369. [...], Id. Epist. 43 [...], Damasc. l. 3. c. 6. Essentiae in Universalibus quidem esse possunt, in solis vero individuis & particularibus substant. Boeth. de duobus naturis & unâ Personâ Christi. Usiam commune aliquid esse dicunt Antiqui, Hypostasin particulare quiddam & individuum. Petav. Dogm. Theol. de Trin. l. 4. c. 7. Essentia quae definitur id per quod res est id quod est, est idaea abstracta quae solâ ratione di­stinguitur ab ente, neque enim ens est in essen­tia ne (que) Essentia in ente, tanquam subjecto neque possunt separari. Cler. Ontolog. c. 4. Aut falsum aut saltem temerarium est quic­quid affirmatur de Essentijs apud Scholasticos, nisi de Idealibus essentijs quas tantum in animo habent, & quos ipsi efformarunt, confunduntque cum realibus intelligatur. Cler. Log. P. 1. p. 34. Potius Essentia in Personis tribus subsistere dicenda est quam Tres Personae in Unâ Essen­tiâ. Chamier. de Trin. [Page 22]distinct from particular Beings (a); but I was not then to teach my Auditors Metaphysicks, nor am now my Breth­ren, but I remember I expresly affirm'd in my Sermon, that there was no Mul­tiplication of Essence in the several Di­vine Persons, which I hope was very Orthodox, and so was every thing I said.

After all this long Scribble, which has tired me, and which I had not time to shorten, and for which I begg your Lordships Patience and Pardon, I have but one thing more to answer, Why I did not carry my Notes to my two offended Brethren, as was desired by the Letter? To which I Reply, That I had done that before, and read those Passages they excepted against to both of them, according to my Promise in Chapter: And I hope your Lord­ship, upon second Thoughts, will not think fit, that one of equal Character to them in other things, and not the less I hope as the King's Chaplain, should be so contemptibly treated, as [Page 23]to be Obliged to go backwards and forwards with his Sermon, and to wait upon his Accusers at their Houses with his Notes, as often as they shall please to call for them, only to pick out perhaps if they can, some New Cavils against them: But in truth I could not do this, had I been never so humble and willing, for my Notes are loose and mangled at the Press, and from thence they and the World may I hope ex­pect a Copy of them very shortly.