A LETTER FROM Dr. P to the Bishop of R— IN VINDICATION OF HIS SERMON ON Trinity Sunday.  
LONDON, Printed for Richard Cumberland, at the Angel in St. Paul's-Church Yard, 1696   

A LETTER, etc.  
My Lord,  
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 aimed 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 myself, 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 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 myself or the World with impertinent Studying, or Writing, but to go oftener 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 chief directed my Sermon, and that with a design to publish it. In order to these ends I applied myself 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 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 ordered 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 informed 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 mentioned 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
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.  
— Hinc Justino, 
Bull. Defence. Fid. Nican. p. 433.  caeterisq. scriptoribus Ante-Nicaenis solemn 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, etc.  
Unus enim Deus ac Pater omnium appellatur, 
Petau. 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 Scripture. in Voce Deus.  quod plerumque 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.   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 Eyesight 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 styled 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 be not there, and whether the Sense be any thing altered 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 out of him, and myself, 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 mentioned 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 shown and read quickly after to Your Lordship and Dr. B—, and also to Dr. Br—, at Dr. H— ks 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 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 concerned 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 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; 
* 
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. Petau. 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.  
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, etc. 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.   I shall put some of his Words, and of Petavius' 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, expressly 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 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 Denial be not in the same sense and meaning, but in different, which I take to be the meaning of Equivocal, than the Contradiction vanishes, and is presently answered, according to that Maxim of the Schoolmen, 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 expressly and literally, or in the same sense to be found in the Schoolmen, and in other Divines of all sorts, on the like Occasion, (applied to God and the Trinity) as I shall largely show in the Quotations on the other side 
* 
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 singular, 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.— Ideò cum Deus in antecedenti stet pro personâ, eodem modo stat in consequent 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 consequent 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 real— Molina 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.  
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, nosque 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 saluâ, 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 relatiuè, 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 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, etc. 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. defence. 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 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— etc. 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.  
R. Majorem ut negemus absit, sed Assumptio tua aequivocatione & elenchi ignoratione fallit, eâdem planè quam in superiore tuâ argumentatione reteximus. Junii Defence. 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 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, etc. Id. Defence. 3. P. 185.  
Now that there is necessarily understood this latitude of Variety, in the sense of several of the Words of the (Athanasian) Creed, is apparent from the consent of those that do subtilise this Mystery 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 sense, 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 sense 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 sense 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 Mystery of Godliness, Book 9 Cap. 2.  
And we must still profess, that we take none of those words to be proper, formal, univocal terms. baxter's Cath. Theology, Sect. 1.   , and the Pages following.  
Whether also this might not be applied 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 Scholastic Questions, and say, 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 justify, 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 itself, tho' never so blind, if it had but Ears, and heard that Sermon of mine, charge me with saying, that Christ and the Holy Ghost were God only Equivocally, and not properly, truly and naturally, when I so often, and so fully, plainly and directly asserted the contrary, through 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, 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, etc.) 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.  
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 own, 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 applied 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 to Christ and the Holy Ghost, and not as much to God the Father, and the whole Trinity, when I used and applied 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 in 
* Homonymia 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 ago 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, whom the Scriptures, Creeds, 
(a) 
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.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,— Eüseb-Caesar Confess. in Synod. Nicaen apud Socrat. H. E. l. 1. c 8.   and Christian Offices 
(b) 
Haec Patris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in omnibus Catholicae Ecclesiae Lyturgijs hodie agnoscitur, nam et in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deum Patrem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (ut Justinus loquitur) glorificamus, et preces plerasque ad ipsum dirigimus. Bull. Def. Fid. Nicaen P. 208.  
Veteri ex usu pleraeque preces ad Patrem referuntur, atque ita decretum legimus in Carthaginensi tertiâ Synodo, Canone 23. ut cum ad altare assistitur, semper ad Patrem dirigatur oratio. Petau. 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, et Spiritui sancto opponunt, sed qui ita respondent, vel sibi contradicunt, vel nihil dicunt, nudaque nobis verba pro rebus obtrudunt. Crell. de Uno Deo, L. 1. C. 1.  
Dei vero Nomen aut omnibus, aut plerisque 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 quaecunque 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 (si ita loqùi fas est) muneris ratione, priore modo Deus summus est quicunque praeditus est essentia divina, posteriore is tantum qui cum sit praeditus essentia divina personam, et partes supremi atque 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 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.   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 sense, 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? Since 
* Sum. 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, 
g Solus Deus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gerard. loc. come. de natura Del. Deum esse a seipso, hoc est neque ab alio, neque ex alio. Amesij Medul. Theol. l. 1. Deus qui semper est, nec habet aliunde principium ipse sui origo est, suaeque 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, 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. of the other two who were produced from him, sent by him, and some are not afraid to say sub-ordinate to him 
* Vide Bull de Subordinatione Filij ad Patrem Defence. 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 sense, which is a Notion Crellius was extremely angry and provoked at 
† Instabunt, etc. , but others of known Orthodoxy pleased with, as an Answer to him and to Tritheism. This tho' not said thus expressly in my Sermon, yet was all could be aimed at and designed, and the utmost possible meaning of the word Equivocal, as used by me, which was but once transiently mentioned, and applied 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. Petau. Dogm. Theolog. de Trin L. 3. C. 1.  Petavius expressly allows the ambiguity or equivocal meaning of the word God, or chief and highest God in the very sense beforementioned; 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 Being's, 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 several 
† Mahomates 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 reason 
* Ut 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 jujured 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 persuade 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, 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 ourselves, and then I can guests at the Secret which lies at the bottom, and in Ciphers '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 public 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, satisfied in it, as in Christianity; for 'tis Christianity as distinct from Natural Religion, and I could die, 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 guests, and imagine; for the words were but just named, with a— 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 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Basil. Epist. 369.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Id. Epist. 43  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Damasc. l. 3. c. 6.  
Essentiae in Universalibus quidem esse possunt, in solis vero individuis & particularibus substant. Both. de duobus naturis & unâ Personâ Christi.  
Usiam common aliquid esse dicunt Antiqui, Hypostasin particular quiddam & individuum. Petau. Dogm. Theol. de Trin. l. 4. c. 7.  
Essentia quae definitur id per quod res est id quod est, est idea abstracta quae solâ ratione distinguitur ab ente, neque enim ens est in essentia neque 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.   distinct from particular Being's (a); but I was not then to teach my Auditors Metaphysics, nor am now my Brethren, but I remember I expressly affirmed 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 beg your Lordship's 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 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 lose and mangled at the Press, and from thence they and the World may I hope expect a Copy of them very shortly.  
My Lord,  
I send you the same Letter in print, only a little enlarged, which I sent you some few Months ago in Writing, being of the same Opinion with your Lordship, that since this has made so much Talk and Noise, that something ought to be made public concerning it; and I doubt not but this will give full Satisfaction to all Learned and Unprejudiced persons, who have any true Knowledge and Understanding in that Controversy, who will see by the Authorities and Quotations I have used, not only a sufficient Defence of my Doctrine, and a full Agreement in it of the best Divines, but such a state of that Controversy against all the Adversaries of the Blessed Trinity as may give an Answer to their Objections against it, and help others rightly to understand it. I have chosen to speak out the Truth from the Mouths of others of unquestioned Credit, rather than my own, that I might not be thought to be singular, and because 'tis very difficult and dangerous sometimes, as one long ago observed 
* Vera de Deo, dicere admodum periculum sit. Ruffin in Symbol. . To speak truth of such high matters, No Man does more fully believe the true Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost than myself, as is well known to all that know me, and appears by several Sermons preached at W— and other places, and for one of them not long ago Tritheism was laid to my charge, (as that and Polytheism was of old to all the Orthodox Believers of a Trinity 
(a) 
So the Jews and Gentiles, as appears by Athanasius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Athanas. contra Arrian Orat. 4. Id. contra Sabel Gregales. Vide Genebrardi Respons. ad Joseph. Albo & David Kimchi.   
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Thus Lucian in his Dialogue, Philopatris: And Celsus apud Originem contra Cells. l. 8.  
So did the Sabellians, who laid the like Charge against Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, when he had condemned Sabellius, from which Charge he was acquitted in a Synod at Rome, Anno 263.  
Itaque duos & tres jam jactitant à nobis praedicari se vero Unius Dei cultores praesumunt. 
Tertullian adv. Prax.   
Vide Euseb. contra Marcellum & Theolog. Eccles.  
So Paulus Samosatenus, 
Concilla Labbe. T. 1. p. 875.  as appears by his Questions to Dionysius of Alexandria, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.— Dionysius his Answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Ibid.  And the Synodic Epistle of the Council of Antioch to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
So Photinus, 
Facund. Hermianens. l. 4.  as appears by Julian 's Letter to him.  
So the Arrians, as appears in many places of Athanasius and others against them, 
Athanas. contra Arrian. Orat. 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
So they and the Macedonians, 
Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 29. Greg. Nyssen. Epist. ad Ablab. Greg. Naz. Orat. 23. Centur. Magdeburg. 7. ex Alcoranl Azoara 12. Cantacuzen. Orat. 3. apud Gualther. Alcor Interpret.  as appears by St. Basil 's particular Discourse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Gregory Nyssens Epistle ad Ablabium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Gregory Nazianzens often answering the Charge of Tritheism, and saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
So the Mahomitans, out of whose Alcoran these words are alleged by the Centuriat. Magdeburg. Omnes quidem dicentes Christum Jesum, Mariae Filium Deum exisere, mendaces reperti sunt, cum Christus ipse dixerit, in Dominum Deum meum atque vestrum credité.— Sunt iterum increduli affirmantes Deos tres esse, quia non est nisi Deus Unus. And Cantacuzenus in his Oration against Mahomet, says, Nec Christum Deum adorare confessus est, ne duos Deos adorare deprehenderetur.  
The Socinians 'tis notorious lay this charge of Tritheism against the blessed Trinity in all their Writings.   in a rude and insolent Preface, which reflected not only upon me and others, but upon all the Bishops of England, and was thought by them to deserve Censure: This was only for asserting with the Ancients and best Moderns, the Distinct Being and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost 
(b) 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Synod Epist. Concil. Constantinop. ad Damasum. Basil Epist. ad Caesar. Origen contra Cells. c. 8. Athanas. contra Sabell. Basil in Princip. Evan. Joan. Athanas. contra Sabel. Gregal. Basil Epist. ad Caesariens.   
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Joan. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.—  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Id. contra Sabel & Art.   
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Id. Epist. ad Caesar.   
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Alexandr. Epist. ad Alexandr. Theodoret. E. H. l. 1.   
How different is this from what we find afterwards in the Lateran Council, which in direct opposition to the best Antiquity, determined as we have it in Greek, 
Concil. Lateran. General, 4 tum Capitul. 2. Concil. Labbè.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. When in those Ignorant and barbarous Ages the true Notion was altered byRoman Power and Scholastic Subtlety, which was preserved but a little before in Damascene, Scotus Erigena, and in a Synod that then decreed the Three Persons to be Tres res distinctas. Oto Frisingen. L. 1. C. 47.  
Scriptura certé nominat Patrem, 
Zanchius de tribus Elohim. C. 2.  Filium & Spiritum Sanctum, ut Res inter se distinctas, Individuas, Subsistentes, Intelligentes Volentes. Ne quod triplici Nomine dicitur rem unam esse putemus. Ibid. de Decret Alexand.  
— Hos tres esse tres res— Personae seu res per se subsistentes. Id.  
Vnaquaeque persona est aliqua res simplicitèr & absoluta— sunt tres res— quia per hanc Numerationem solum indicatur absoluta & realis distinctio inter illas. Suarez de Trin. L. 3. C. 6.  
Nihilominus simpliciter verum censeo tres Personas esse tria Entia Realia. Ib.  
The Critics, such as Valla, had no Cause to find fault with Boethius, for applying the Notion of Person to an Intelligent Being subsisting by itself, therefore I cannot but wonder at the Niceness of some late Men.— Themselves confess Boethius his Definition of a Person (Substantia Rationalis individua, etc.) to be true enough, but they say it belongs to the Creatures, and not to God, for it would make three Gods.— And he plainly allows three Persons to be three Individual Being's. Bishop Stillingsleet's Dialogue concerning Trinity and Transubstant.  
This great Man, when his Adversary had told him, that his defending the Doctrine of the Trinity by reason, showed he was a bold Man, and would venture further than Wiser Men; thus Answers, (And I make bold to vindicate myself with his Words) It may be others have not the Leisure or Curiosity to examine a Mystery believed to be so much out of the reach of our Understanding, and have confounded themselves and others so much with School-Terms, as to leave the matter rather more obscure than it was before, but I shall endeavour to make things as clear as they will bear.  
Advertisement.  
THese Papers were Written; and Printed most part of them, before the Bishop of Worcester's late Book.   , and that they were Proper and Real Persons, and not only Modes, Respects, Characters, Offices, Names, etc. of one Divine Being or Person. Now a very different and even contrary Charges comes upon me, from the same quarter, and is raised by the same Spirit, which like the Testimony of False Witnesses betrays and discovers its own Untruth by its own Contradictions. I protest by all that's Sacred, I never said the Words charged upon me, and they are only a false Inference of their own, from their mistaking and misunderstanding of my Words, and not rightly understanding the Controversy, as I hope will fully appear to all Learned and Impartial Readers of this Letter, and especially to your Lordship, to whose Candour and Judgement I commit it, hoping you will pardon some things writ in great haste, and some little heat upon such a Provocation. If my Accusers be not satisfied by it, I challenge them with all their mighty Zeal and Knowledge both, fairly to reply to it, and to the Authorities here produced. I am your Lordship's 

Advertisement.  
THe Erratas of the Press are too many to be particularised, especially in the Greek, the Learned and Candid Reader will easily see and Correct them.    
Most Humble and Obedient Servant, W. pain.  

Postscript.  
My Lord,  
SInce the Printing this Letter in Vindication of my Sermon, your Lordship and my Brethren in a full and late Chapter, have upon a fresh Debate and further Examination of the matter, been pleased to own yourselves satisfied about it; so that were it not as Necessary, both upon Public and Private Reasons, to satisfy the World too, I could almost have wished this Letter had not been printed at all, it being writ hastily in a few days, and being the first and free running of my Thoughts, without any Laboured or Artificial Composure; to which I added very little, but only some Authorities to be my Vouchers and Compurgators for some Words that were not understood, and therefore odd and offensive to some, but very necessary and very usual with the best Writers against Socinianism, when they are answering their subtlest Objections, and like Fencers, keeping their Eye upon their Adversaries, and avoiding all their Thrusts. However, I could now have wished that some few things, savouring a little Resentment, which was excusable at that time I hope both to me and others, when we did not so well understand one another, had been left out: For I am now better satisfied, that there was nothing of that personal Prejudice and ill Will, or unkind Design from any, upon some other accounts, which I suspected to have been in it; but that it all arose from pure mistake, and misunderstanding some some few Words and Expressions in my Sermon, which were thought to have another meaning than they really had; and this may easily happen upon a transient hearing or reading a Discourse, upon so Nice a Subject as the Trinity, which I could not avoid on that day, and which I made as plain and useful as I could, and only cryptically and in a few words took off one great and obvious Difficulty and Objection, that of Three Gods, and One God, which is always thrown in the way, and is the mighty Stumbling-block in that Article of our Christian Faith, which others have been heaving at with a great many Scolastick Levers, and I thought one word would remove it, and take off all the objected Contradiction. The misunderstanding the word Equivocal, used upon that Occasion, was the chief, if not the only reason of my Worthy Brothers concerning himself in the matter. He who was the first Occasion of all this, has abundantly convinced me, that it was no other misunderstanding between us, both by his Protestations and Civil Treatment, and genteel begging my Pardon for it; and I do now beg his, and any other of my brethren's, for any thing that may seem in this Letter to be any ways reflecting upon them, and especially of Dr. S—, who hath given too many Instances of his Learning to be denied, and a greater than I expected in this matter of his Temper. I have no need, I am sure, to do this to your Lordship, for whom I have too much Respect and Veneration to let any thing drop from my Pen or Tongue, so unagreeable to my Mind and Thoughts: Every one sees so much of the Gentleman as well as the Scholar, shining through your Sacred Character, and so much Good Breeding and Civility joined with your Paternal Wisdom and Gravity, that your Excellent Temper will no more let you do an il-natured and unbecoming thing, than your Admirable Pen, which has been a great while the Standard of English Eloquence, will let you write an unfit one. Your Zeal for the Catholic Faith, and your particular Duty made it fit and Necessary for you to take Notice of such a Charge as was brought you against my Sermon: I must have blamed your Lordship, and my Brethren as much as others, if you had not done it; and be so far from taking it ill, that I must thank you for it, for the right you have herehy done to the Faith and to me both: Like a true Friend of the King and Government, if taken up by mistake, through the hasty Zeal of an officious Constable or Informer, when he has shown the mistake, and cleared himself to the Magistrates upon the strictest enquiry, he will rather commend and thank 'em for their Zeal and Care of the Public, than be any ways angry with them for the little trouble and inconvenience that was accidentally given to himself in serving so good an end, which he so much likes and prefers to any thing private. I would willingly sacrifice my own particular Credit, and all the worldly Interests I have, to the Cause of Christianity in general, or to that Fundamental part of it, the Doctrine of the Trinity; without which Christianity will, in my Opinion, lose its peculiar Scheme and Constitution, and its great and august Character; and therefore I have endeavoured, the best way I can, to defend this against its Adversaries, and to represent it to its Friends in the best light, that of the Scriptures and Antiquity, in which it appears much clearer than in those Scholastic Disputes and Explications which have only clouded and obscured it, and turned plain Christianity into a Metaphysical Subtlety. But when those who defend and maintain the Faith, are brought under a Charge of undermining and betraying it, this is not only a particular Injury to themselves, which it is very hard to lie under; and no Man, as one says, aught to be patiented under the Suspicion of Heresy; but it is a great injury and disservice to the Faith itself, by supposing its pretended and avowed Friends to be its secret Enemies; and that upon a free enquiry and examining into it, they see reason to be so; and thereby rendering the very Doctrine suspicious and questionable, as well as increasing the Number, and adding to the Party and Interest of its professed Adversaries. The charging any such Suspicion of Heresy upon me, and some others, and especially of Socinianism, will look as ridiculous and incredible to those who know us, as Sir John Fenwick's charging some of the known Friends and Assertors of the Government with being in the Plot, and inclined to Jacobitism: I have given so much Evidence to the contrary in all my Discourses and Sermons, that if any think they might have reason to do this for a few mistaken Words and Expressions, which they do not like or understand, others may upon the same account charge me with Popery too; tho' I have writ so many Treatises against it, because I followed not exactactly their Words and Phrases, or their Method of Writing and Thinking, in managing those Subjects, but either granted too much to my Adversaries, or asserted something that they think odd and suspicious, and looks to them like a Popish Principle. As when in a Discourse on the Sacrifice of the Mass, I own the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice in some sense, and in some sense Propitiatory too, from hence there may be as good ground to charge Popery upon me, as any thing Heretical or Socinian, upon the mistaken and misunderstood Words of my Sermon, when the whole Scope, Design and Drift of it, was to the contrary.  
Perverse and Angry Men, tied up to their own Models and narrow Systems, might have made as great a Work, and stirred up as great Suspicions, Contests and Dissensions among ourselves, a few Years ago, about several Points relating to those Popish Controversies, as about the Real Presence, Justification, Good Works, and the like, as have been more lately, and very unhappily raised about the Trinity, and have given as great an advantage to the common Enemy by so doing: And no doubt the one would have took hold of it, and improved it as much against the common Cause then, as the others have done since. But tho' I think it would have been very imprudent, and very dangerous, both then and now, to stop the Controversy, and impose silence upon this account, and let our Adversaries writ on and triumph without Answers, and so to lose the Truth for fear of losing Peace, yet common Prudence and Christian Charity, and a hearty concern for the common Cause, should make all Writers agree in one Case as well as the other, notwithstanding some little difference of Thoughts and Expressions, and not break out into a Civil War among ourselves, while we are opposing a public Enemy, when in the main we do agree in the same Doctrine, the same Article and Confession, as 'tis expressed by our Church.  
The Schoolmen and Divines of the Church of Rome differ very much among themselves about these very matters. Peter Lombard and Richardus de Sancto Victore about the Definition of a Person, and Essence generating Essence; Durandus, Scotus, Ocham and Biel about the Divine Unity, and whether the distinction in the Deity be real and Formal, or Modal and Virtual. The Scotists and Thomists have their known Differences and Parties about those and other things; Copreolus and Aureolus differ throughout; so do the Jesuits and Dominicans, Molina with Thomas, and Cajetan, Valentia, Suarez and Vasquez, tho' all Jesuits, yet dispute fiercely with one another; the two latter especially, about the famous Question of a common Subsistence in the Trinity, whilst Arriba is very zealous against them all, for allowing Aliquid Relativum as well as Absolutum in the Trinity. And to name not others, Tanner, Ruiz and Arriaga oppose one another, and those that have gone before them, in several high Points, as do indeed all their Modern Writers, taking the part sometimes of Scotus, and sometimes of Thomas, and sometimes differing from both, and always from those that wrote a little before them: They dispute Problematically, and hold different Opinions concerning these Trinitarian Points, as much as other Theological Questions; and particularly Ruiz 
* Disp. 22. Sect. 1.  proposes an Explication of the Trinity, different from the common Soholastic one; making the Three Persons together God adequately, and each single Person God inadequately: Which tho' he asserts not, yet by his Authorities out of the Fathers we may see he Favours, whilst all of them still agree in the common Faith of the Article, as 'tis determined and expressed in the words of their Church. So long as they do this, none of their Infallible Popes, or wise Bishops, have thought fit to interpose by their Authority, or to determine on one side or other, or to impose silence upon all, notwithstanding the mighy plenitude of their Ecclesiastical Authority, and the wretched Slavery which hath been complained of under it, even the worst of Slaveries to rational Creatures, that of their Minds and Thoughts; Notwithstanding that, it seems, their own Members, and their Learned Men have a free Liberty of venting their private Thoughts and different Sentiments, even in those high matters, so long as they consent and subscribe to the general Doctrine of their Church. Nay, which is more strange, and more to be wondered at, they have never censured, that I know of, those known and exceptionable Passages and bold Assertions in Durandus, Aliaco, Erasmus, Genebrard, and others, of Three Gods in a Personal sense, and of Cajetan, Molina, Javellus, and abundance of their celebrated Writers, holding Three Eternals and Omnipotents, and Interpreting the Athanasian Creed so as to make those Adjectives signify only Substantively and Essentially. While they allow this Freedom, Liberty and Latitude to their Friends and to one another, they give no quarter to their Adversaries out of their Communion, but pursue them, and particularly Mr. Calvin, with the heaviest Charges of Blasphemy and Tritheism, Nay, even of Atheism, for the least unwary and exceptionable Expressions about the Trinity, as may be seen in Genebrard de Trin. Fevardentius' Theomachia, Salmero's Disput. Possevin in Atheismis, and others. The Reason is plain, they hated them upon other Accounts, and were resolved to quarrel with them upon all Occasions they could find: They bore an hostile Mind and inveterate Spirit, and implacable Malice against them for other Reasons, and therefore lay at Catch, to Accuse and Expose them, tho' never so falsely and unjustly, and resolved to pursue the Charge of Heresy against them in all Points where there was the least shadow or colour, and especially in so tender a point as this of the Trinity, where 'tis so easy to make it with a little Spite and Malice, and so hard to avoid it with the utmost Caution, upon so Nice and Difficult a Subject. The Learned Friends of the Reformation have sufficiently cleared and vindicated Mr. Calvin's Orthodoxy in those Points, notwithstanding some few Expressions, by which he dislikes calling the Trinity one God, etc. as not strictly Scriptural, (in Epist. ad Polon) and it would have been looked upon as a very odious and ill Office, to the Service of Popery and Dishonour of the Reformation, if any Protestant had joined with his Popish Enemies and Accusers, and countenanced or maintained the same Charge against him. If there were a true Spirit of Christian Charity, Love and Good Will among us, our Differences and Dissensions about the Trinity would quickly be at an end, however high they have been carried of late by some among us. Your Lordship I know will take Care, with your great Prudence and Temper, to preserve this among us at Westminster: And may the God of Peace and Love inspire the Hearts of all Christians, and especially of all Clergymen, who are of the same Faith and the same Communion, that they may keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace, and hold the Mystery of the Faith in a pure Conscience.    

Some Opinions and Differences of the Schoolmen and Romish Divines, about Deus Vnus & Trinus.  
DEus genuit Deum qui non est Deus Pater, ergo non est tantum unus Deus personaliter, quod verum est. Durandus in Sentent. Lib. 1. Dist. 5. Qu. 2.  
Sensit Petrus de Aliaco, in 1 Q. 3. circa finem, et Q. 5. per totum, et ut videtur, Marsilius in 1. q. 5. art. 2. ad 5. Sc. de rigore Sermonis recte posse dici personas esse tres Deos, et tantum vitari oportere eum modum loquendi propter periculum ne credantur tres Divinitates, Valent. Disp. 2. Qu. 13. Punct. 3.  
Quúm Deus ponitur respectu termini vel praedicati essentialis supponit pro essentiâ, sed quúm in respectu termini vel praedicati notionalis supponit pro personâ, et hoc intelligitur quùm ponitur respectu termini precisè supponentis pro supposito vel essentiâ, et hoc rationabiliter tum propter identitatem divinae naturae et suppositi, tum etiam propter Haereticos, ne si Deus precisè supponeret pro supposito, multae propofitiones essent concedendae quae per astutiam Haereticorum simplicibus propositae, essent ijs occasio errandi & credendi pluralitatem Deorum ac Divinarum Essentiarum. Biel Repertorium, L. 1. Dist. 4. Qu. 1.  
Notandum quòd cum Deus ponitur cum signo alietatis, aut importante pluralitatem supponit essentialitèr, & hoc ne si concederent quod Pater est alius Deus à Filio, simplices putarent esse plures Deos; cavent enim Doctores ne detur occasio errandi simplicibus quo credant esse plures, Deos essentialiter distinctos, quo modo errent idololatrae, & ideo illae negantur Deus genuit Deum, Pater Filius & Spiritus sanctus sunt tres Dij, quamvis concedatur quod persona genuit aliam personam divinam. Ibid.  
Catholicè dici potest una essentia trium personarum et tres personae unius essentiae, non autem unus Deus trium personarum, vel tres personae unius Dei. Id. L. 1. Dist. 34.  
Haec cum Petro Aliaco non satisfacerent, (Sc. Explicatio symboli Athanas. non tres aeterni, etc. quam Thom. Aquin. Holcot & alij dabant) aliam interpretationem indagare coactus est; in Symbolo, inquit, cum concedantur tres coaeterni, miror quare ibidem negantur tres aeterni, nec video rationem diversitatis; postea dum quaerit sitne aliquo sensu concedendum tres esse Deos, quid his responderi velit, indicat, ait Dei nomen aliquando sumi essentialitèr, atque ita reciprocari cum essentiae divinae sen divinitatis vocabulo, eique esse plane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aliquando intelligi personaliter supponereque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro divina personâ et sic Deum generari à Deo, et Christum Dei esse Filium; priore designatione non credendum esse tres Deos, ne Dei essentia multiplex existimetur, posteriore quemmodum istae propositiones recipiuntur, non tantum est una persona divina vel tres sunt personae divinae quarum quaelibet est Deus, sic agnoscendas esse has non tantum est unus Deus, vel plures sunt Dei, quod tales idem penitus valeant juxta hanc alteram significationem idque apparere per nominis rationem atque vim. Aliaco q. 5. prim. Sentent. Genebrard de Trin. l. 3. p. 234.  
Posset etiam dici nomen Deus interdum spectare ad personam & eo sensu esse tres Deos,— interdum idque saepius ad essentiam referri,— tumqueVnicus est Deus, Id. p. 237.  
Si mavis tres Deos in tres divinas personas possis dicere atque interpretari, non vocabulum Deus aliquando sumitur hypostaticè ut Deus a Deo, Id. L. 2. p. 155.  
Ad eosdem pertinet, quod adjicio de tribus Dijs, hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quum Petrus Aliacensis assentientibus Theologis putet in aliquo sensu verum, tamen apud populum magno offendiculo dicitur, inter eruditos nihil habet offensae, quibus cognitum est Dei vocabulum, non semper sonare divinam essentiam, sed accipi nomen pro personâ ut cum dicimus Deus gignit Deum, & Jesum esse Filium Dei, nihil enim aliud intelligunt docti, quam esse tres personas in quarum unamquamque competat Dei vocabulum. Neque prorsus negat Alliacensis posse dici tres omnipotentes ac tres aeternos, & si negaret consequitur tamen ex his quae concessit posse dici tres Deos, licet non simplicitèr, quemadmodum enim juxta Dialecticam non est absurdum dicere tres sapientes uná sapien tià, tres bonos eadem bonitate, tres omnipotentes eádem omnipotentian, tres esse sed eâdem essentiâ, tres volentes eâdem voluntate, it a non arbitror impium dicere tres Deos eodem Deitate, non enim minùs ad substantiam Dei pertinet Deum esse quam sapientem esse, verum ut haec non asserit Alliacensis, ita nec ego assero in hoc tantum adduxi ut docerem fieri posse ut quaedam sint vera juxta sensum aliquem, quae tamen apud imperitos efferri non expediat. Erasmus in Hyperaspist. diatribae contra Lutherum de servo arbitrio.  
However exceptionable the Assertions of these Men are, yet the Church of Rome never censured them, and the Socinians cannot take any advantage against them, since Socinus 
* Tantum abest ut qui ista profitetur (sc. Christianis duos esse Deos, hoc enim objecrat Wiekus) propter id ut Wieko placet, non Christianus sed Ethnicus sit appellandus. Socin. Respon. ad Wiekum. C. 1.  says (against Wiekus) that it is so far from Pagan to worship two Gods, that 'tis most Christian, and Smalcius says 'tis Jewish to believe and worship but one God, and Crellius 
† Quasi aut duos Deos haberemus summos, aut Unum habere Deum summum, alterum vero ab eo dependentem eique subordinatum sacris literis sit adversum? Crel. de uno Deo, C. 1. S. 2. C. 18.  says 'tis no way contrary to Scripture to have two Gods, they who are for worshipping Christ, must all say this, and their Heresy lies in making him a God only by Office and not by Nature, they are therefore truly chargeable with Polytheism as the Arriaus were of old, who worship a Creature as God, or any being that has not the true Divine Nature and Essence, but they who hold the same Divinity, the same one Essence to be in three Persons, and communicated from the first to the two other, as from one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Principium can never be charged with Polytheism or Tritheism; all the Tritheists who were condemned in late and dark times, holding three Essences and so opposing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Peratae in Theodoret, Philoponus in Nicephorus, and Photius: Joachim in the Lateran Council, Roscelin in the Synod of Soissons, Abaelardus in the Synod of Soissons, Porretanus in that of Rheims, but of this elsewhere. I shall only instance further in the Opinions and Differences of the Scholastic and Romish Divines about three Eternals, Omnipotents, etc. and three Subsistencies.  
Dicimus tres existentes, vel tres sapientes, aut tres aeternos & increatos si adjective sumantur, si vero substantive sumantur dicimus unum increatum, immensum & aeternum, ut Athanasius dicit. Cajetan Comment. in Thom. Qu. 39 Art. 3. Athanasius substantivis usus est adjectiuè in Symbolo. Javell. Exposit. in Cajetan. Ibid.  
Petavius explains this otherwise against these and Thomas Aquinas too,— Quem ad finem verba illa in Symbolo posita sunt imprimis spectare convenit, haec igitur adversus Arrianorum Haeresin opposita videntur á conditore symboli, quae Trinitatem cum tribus componebat personis inaequalibus et substantia diversis quarum singulae singulis constabant ut naturis ita proprietatibus naturae. Petau. de Trin. p. 286.  
Molina had before upon the Principles of Aquinas, endeavoured to reconcile the Athanasian Creed, about one Omnipotent Eternal, with the Council of Lateran, which declared for three Coeternals, etc. thus; Ex conclusione D. Thomae regulâque propositâ, facile erit intelligore rationem conciliandi quaedam dicta in Symbolo Athanasij & in Concilio Lateranensi Cap. Firm. de summa Trin. & in fide catholicâ, quae primo aspectu videntur contraria inter se. In symbolo-namque Athanasij, de Patre, Filio & Spiritu sancto dicitur, non tres aeterni in plurali, sed unus aeternus, sicut non tres increati nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus & unus immensus & infra, non tres omnipotentes sed unus omnipotens. Cap. vero firm. de eodem Patre, Filio & Spiritu sancto dicitur in plurali, consubstantiales, et coequales, et coomnipotentes, et coeterni, imo in eodem Symbolo Athanasij, eaedem personae etiam dicuntur coeternae, eye verbis coeternae sibi sunt et coequales; haec, ex dictis, in hunc modum concilianda. Athanasius in locis primo loco citatis, sumpsit nomina illa substantive, (tametsi quaedam eorum, quod non sumantur in terminatione neutrâ, pre se ferant formam Adjectivorum) ideoque negavit dici pluraliter de tribus personis. Concilium vero Lateranense, idemque Athanasius, ubi seoundo loco citatur, sumpserunt illa alia nomina adjectiuè eâque rationè tribuerunt illa tribus personis in numero plurali. Molina Comment. in Thom. p. 1. q. 39 art. 3. disp. 1.  
Arriba opposes Molina, and gives another Answer to this Difficulty, Respondeo ad difficultatem, quod concilium Lateranense dum affirmat Patrem, Filium & Spiritum sanctum in plurali numero esse consubstantiales, coequales & coeternos, & coomnipotentes, loquitur de ipsis secundum rationem & habitudinem relativam, quae ratione praedictae particulae defert pluralitatem in suppositis Existentibus à parte subjecti. Arriba conciliatorium Lib. 2. disp. 3. c. 13.  
As to the Divine Subsistencies the Differences are greater, Tres sunt de hâc re Scholasticorum Opiniones, prima unum esse subsistentiam essentialem seu absolutam, & nullas personales seu relativas, ita Durandus, Paludanus, Capreolus, in 3. d. 1. quibus videtur favere Thomas qu. 2. de poten. a. 1. & qu. 8. a. 3, & 7. secunda tres esse subsistentias relativas & nullam absolutam sen essentialem ita Bonaventura & alij multi, tertia unam esse subsistentiam absolutam & tres relativas ita Cajetanus in 1 p. q. 3. a. 3. & in 3 p. q. 2. a. 2. Becanus de Trin. C. 3. Qu. 11.  
Singularis quaedam opinio doctissimi alioqui Theologi Cajetani, qui in 1 p. qu. 3. art. 3. & qu. 39 art. 4. existimavit praeter tres subsistentias relativas, quibus constituuntur personae, esse etiam in Divinis quandam subsistentiam absolutam, quae cum essentiâ divinâ constituat hunce Deum subsistentem, pro quo supponitur ille terminus, Deus acceptus essentialiter. Valent. disp. 2. qu. 13.  
Secunda sententia referri potest asserens tres personas vere & propriè esse unum Deum ratione untus subsistentis communitèr in Deitate, ablatâ vero subsistentiâ communi non posse tres personas dici proprie & simplicitèr unum Deum: Sumitur ex Cajetan. 3 p. q. 3. a 6. & Durand. in 3. dist. 1. q. 3. Richard art. 1. qu. 5. ratio est quia positâ subsistentiâ communi, hoc subsistens in Deitate est hic Deus, qui proprie dicitur Pater, Filius & Spiritus Sanctus, ablatâ vero subsistentiâ non potest designari in concreto unus numero Deus, qui sit tres personoe. Suarez de Trin. L. 4. C. 12.  
Non potest admitti quod sit unum suppositum commune tribus personis, quia hoc esset confundere tres personas in unam personam seu hypostasin, unde merito reprehenditur Gajetanus, quod aliquo modo admiserit unum suppositum commune tribus perfonis quanquam non simpliciter, sed cum addito id dixerit, scilicec suppositum incompletum vel personam incompletam, nam ratio suppositi repugnat cum communicabilitate divinae substantiae. Suarez disput metaphies 34. in Deo potest esse subsistentia communicabilis. Ibid.  
Possumus intelligere hunc Deum esse quid commune tribus personis non solum ratione naturae & personalitatis confusè conceptae, sed etiam ratione subsistentiae communis. Id. T. 1. Comment. in 3 Thom. disp. 11. but of this see Suarez T. 1. p. 3. disp. 11. sect. 3. and Valentia against it. 1 p. disp. 123. c. 3.  
Whoever reads the Schoolmen, especially upon these Propositions, Deus create, Deus generat, Deus spirat, Deus est incarnatus, & Hic Deus will find them very different and perplexed, and yet all agreeing that the word Deus must be taken ambiguously and equivocally, and not in one adequate and univocal sense, but sometimes as an universal and communis terminus, sometimes singularly, sometimes essentially, and sometimes personally, sometimes abstractly and sometimes concretely, sometimes substantively and sometimes adjectively, sometimes indefinitely and sometimes precisely, sometimes absolutely eminently and appropriately, and sometimes particularly and connotatively. Those who are versed in them cannot be ignorant of this, and that these distinctions are necessary to account for God's being one and three, Deus unus & trinus, and to take off the Contradiction of three Gods and one God in the Doctrine of the Trinity.  
But not to swell and enlarge too much this Farrago which I have made so, not without design, like the Philosophers Acroamata, that while it is understood by the Wise and Learned, it may not be obnoxious to the Ignorant and Captious 
(a) Carpere & Detrahere vel imperiti possunt, doctorum autem est & qui laborantium novere sudorem vel lassis mawm porrigere, vel errantibus iter ostendere. Hieron. in Jon. c. 4. , upon the best Judgement I can make with my little Parts and Reading, having nothing but Truth and Faith before my Eyes: The Schoolmen have perplexed and entangled themselves and this Doctrine with Endless Difficulties, and run it into such Contradictions as themselves own would be so in any thing else 
(a) Tenet praeterquam in proposito in divinis, eo quod nusquam alibi possunt esse tres res quarum nulla est alia quae tamen sunt una res numero, sed tantum in divinis illa reperitur. Biel Repertor L. 1. Dist. 5. Qu. 1. 
Impossibile putant unam rem singularim esse plures res sicut impossibile est in creaturis,— & quidem in Creaturis non datur instantia, sed in divinis datur. Ibid.  
Distinctionem virtualem in eo formalissimè consistere, quòd uni realiter indivisibili à parte rei & independenter a nostris conceptibus conveniant praedicata quae alioquin videtur contradictoria, & quidem in creaturis essent contradictoria,— in divinis posse eandem rem produci & non produci communicari & non communicari quod nulli Creaturae convenit,— in divinis capacitatem majorem in una indivisibili re ad habenda praedicata contradictoria quam in humanis,— quod si rationem a priori hujus distinctionis quaeramus, non aliam possumus reddere nisi infinitam perfectionem Dei, ratione cujus in ordine ad aliqua praedicata in se opposita habet capacitatem ea recipiendi simul, perinde ac si esset multiplex realiter,— fateor eam aequivalentiam difficulter intelligi, non est tamen propterea neganda, eam enim fides, in cujus obsequium debemus captivare intellectum,  ostendit. Arrlaga Tractat. de Mysterio Trinit. Disp. 42. Sect. 1.  
Eidem indivisibili rei respectu alterius etiam indivisibilis convenit realiter distingui & realiter esse idem. Ibid.  
Qui non attingunt non aliud non esse idem, & non idem non esse aliud non possunt capere etc. Cusan. in Crib. Alcor. L. 2. C. 8.  , (as for the same thing to be one and three, the same and not the same, produced and not produced) and have obscured it with dark and unintelligible (not to say false) terms, which only amuse but do not satisfy, as real Essences distinct from singular Being's, and Existence without Subsistence, and modes of Existence, Subsistence, and the like Explications of Obscurum per obscurius, which are not to be found in any of the Fathers, but only in latter Schoolmen and modern Metaphysics 
(b) Tunc igitur existentia naturae substantialis erit complete terminata quando suerit affecta modo existendi per se, hic ergo modus complet rationem subsistentiae creatae, ille ergo habet propriam rationem personalitatis seu suppositalitatis. Suarez Disp. Metaphys. 34. 
— Pestquam essentia est in actu, solum indiget modo existendi in se & per se declaratur ex incarnatione Christi, nihil enim aliud intelligimus deesse humanitati Christi, ut non subsistat subsistentiâ propriâ nisi talem existendi modum quo sit per se & non in alio, nam in ea est integra omnis essentia actualis & creata, & consequenter est etiam substantialis existentia humanae naturae, tamen quia illa existentia ita est affecta ut innitatur verbo, a quo sustentatur & pendet, ideo caret illa humanitas modo existendi per se, ergo solum ex defectu hujusmodi non est subsistens nec persona creata, ergo talis modus est qui babet rationem personalitatis creatae.  
Id quod suppositum creatum addit supra naturam, distinguitur quidem in re ab ipsâ naturâ, non tamen omnino realiter tanquam res a re, sed modaliter, ut modus rei a re.  
Est ergo substantia transcendenter sumpta ut distinguitur contra accidens (quia non potest substantia ab accidente formaliter accipere suum complementum) non tamen entitas sed modus substantialis, atque ita non directe sed reductive ponitur in praedicamento substantiae quia est aliquid substantiale. Suarez Metaphys. Disp. 34.  , that they have thereby given too much advantage to the Socinians, who have been prejudiced and hardened by these Scholastic Explications against the Doctrine itself, so that the plainest Evidence and Demonstration of it from Scripture will not persuade them to believe, what appears so unintelligible and unreasonable as 'tis represented to them. The Doctrine seems to me, and I hope may to others, even to them at last, to be liable to no such Charge, but to be more plain & easy to our Thoughts, (tho' it has many things in it very mysterious and incomprehensible, both as to the thing and the manner of it) as 'tis proposed by Revelation, and as 'tis explained by the best Antiquity in this manner: An Original, Eternal Mind, with an Eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or substantial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 issuing from it, and an Eternal Divine Spirit proceeding from both, for the Ancients do not call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which would represent all of them rather as original and absolute, and not relative and derived from another, as two of them are from one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Principium, Fons, Origo, etc. in which they chief lay the Divine Unity, but always assert a real Trinity of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is the Explication of the Ancients which they hold with this more plain Scriptural Account of the Trinity, that needs no Explication: One God the Father, with an only begotten Son, (and so of the same Nature with himself) and a Divine Spirit, the Spirit of the Father and the Son (who has Personal and Divine Attributes, and Perfections plainly attributed to him) and so each of the two latter are God in a true and proper sense, as habentes Deitatem & Divinâ Naturâ praediti, but not unoriginated, or God in that high sense, as the Father who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to whom therefore the term of God and one God, is more peculiarly attributed and even appropriate in the Judgement of the Ancients 
(a) Nam quum id sit principium caeteris quod ingenitum, Deus solus Pater est, qui extra originem est, ex quo hic est qui genitus. Tertul. seu Novatian. de Trin. 
Deus quidem ostenditur Filius cui Divinitas tradita & porrecta conspicitur, & tamen nihilominus unus Deus Pater probatur. Ibid.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athanas. Orat. coutra Arrianos.  
Deum in verbo suo omnia fecisse, dum enim Deum audio Patrem cogito. Scotus Erigena de Divis. Naturae, L. 1. P. 61.  
Habeo libenterque accipio Dei nomine Patrem, Principij Filium Dei, Spiritus Dei Spiritum Sanstum significatos. Ibid.   and Moderns 
(b) Peculiaritèr & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tribuitur Patri Dei nomen. Ravanel. biblioth. v. Deus & Persona. 
Caeterum Attributionem seu Appropriationem ut vocant nominis Deus omnes in Scriptura pie ac prudenter exercitati facile animadvertunt.— Appropriatio autem omnino in eo sita est, quod vox Deus quae caeteroquin pluribus numero personis est communis, tanquam unius nempe Patris propria sumatur. Bisterfield contra Crel. L. 1. P. 41.  
Nun in hoc regno-solus Condaeus absolutè princeps dicitur, idque elogium pro ejus nomine proprio saepissimè ponitur cum alij.— Exemplum in quo Attributum commune uni tantum ex illis ita rectè tribuitur ut dicere ci soli competere.— Placaeus contra Crell. P. 33.  . This is the Christian and Catholic Faith, which he that believes with or without, with right or with wrong Explications is undoubtedly Orthodox. The Truth seems to lie so plain, that I wonder any should miss it, I have picked it up where others have over looked it: It is generally observed to lie between contending Parties. The Socinians, especially Crellius, insist very much upon the Scriptural Notion of One God the Father: The Ancients also do this, as I have shown, but not exclusively to the Divinity of Son and Holy Ghost, as the others have done very Erroneously and Heretically. The School men missed this plain Notion, whilst they carefully maintain the other, but run into a Labyrinth of Subtleties and Difficulties about One's being Three, and Three One, and wove an artificial cloudy Network of thin but dark Cobwebs, such as Real Universals, Substantial Modes, Subsistent Relations, Unsubsistent Existencies, Concrete Personal Properties, etc. that through it One Being may look and appear as Three, and yet be One; and to avoid the Objection of Three Gods, which they need not have been puzzled with, if they had hit right upon that of One, according to Scripture and Antiquity, they make three distinct Subsistencies, and but one distinct Subsistent, Three opposite Modes and Relations, and but one Subject of them, Three Divine Persons, and but One Divine Being; Three Somewhats, and but One Thing. My hearty Zeal and Concern for the Honour of Christianity, and my deep Regret to see its Faith thus Mangled and Perverted, and my Pity to see so many groping for the Light at Noonday, and looking so carefully for what they have in their hands, has made me venture to show that which I wonder I did not always see, and I hope others may do the same.   

Some Remarks of the Fathers upon Sabellianism, and the wrong and Jewish Notion of One God which it held, and from whence it arose.  
SImplices enim quique ne dixerim imprudentes, & idiotes, quae major semper credentium pars est, quoniam & ipsa regula fidei à pluribus Deis saculi ad Vnicum & verum Deum transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidam sed cum suâ oeconomiâ esse credendum, expavescunt ad oeconomiam, numerum & dispositionem Trinitatis. Divisionem praesumunt unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsâ derivans Trinitatem, non destruatur ab illâ sed administretur. Itaque duos & tres jam jactitant a nobis praedicari, se vero unius Dei ●ultores ●pr●●sunm●t, quasi non & unitas irrationaliter collecta Heresin faciat? & Trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituat. Tertul. adv. Praxeam.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athanas. contra Sabellij Gregales.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil Epist. 64. ad Neocaesar.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. contra Sabel. & Arr.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 25.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. Orat. 1.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cyrll Alexandrin. in Thesauro, p. 109.  
It was Sabellius his plausible and twitting Question; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Epiphan. Heres. 62. Thus Noetus gloried in his being an Unitarian, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Id. Heres. 57 But the Father calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for those Reasons, which are a Demonstration against his Opinion of One Being; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiphan. Ibid.  
They brought all the places of Scripture for One God against the Real Trinity, as others do since, and run into their Error, to avoid Tritheism. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Ibid.  
From all which it is plain, and will be plainer to those who read these Authors at large, that it is Heretical to believe One God in a Jewish and Sabellian (I may add now in a Mahometan and Socinian) Sense, as well as Three Gods in a Gentile and Pagan, or Marcionite and Valentinian; and that Christianity is between those Extremes, believing One God the Father, a Son, who is God begotten of him, and a Holy Ghost, who is God proceeding from both. I conclude with a Quotation which the Learned Reader will understand the full Purport of: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Nyssen. adv. Gre. T. 2. p. 82.  
FINIS.   

Advertisement.  
He Reader is desired to add these words which were omitted, p. 20. lin. ult. No way contrary to that of the Church of England, I am as well— Many other Erratas having slipped correction, the Reader is desired to excuse and amend.   

☞ Three Sermons of the Author, in Octavo, finished before his Death, will be Published in a few days.