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 Scholastick Disputes and Explications which have only clouded and obscured it and turn'd 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 lye under and no Man as one says ought to be patient under the Suspicion of Heresie but it is a great injury and disservice to the Faith it self 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 rendring the very Doctrine suspicious and questionable as well as increasing the Number and adding to the Party and Interest of its profest Adversaries The charging any such Suspicion of Heresie 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 tyed up to their own Models and narrow Systems might have made as great a Work and stirred up as great Suspitions Contests and Dissentions among our selves 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 Controversie and impose silence upon this account and let our Adversaries write 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 our selves while we are opposing a publick Enemy when in the main we do agree in the same Doctrine the same Article and Confession as 't is exprest by our Church The School-men 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 Jesuites and Dominicans Molina with Thomas and Cajetan Valentia Suarez and Vasquez tho' all Jesuites 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 no 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 't is determined and exprest 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 signifie 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's Theomachia Salmero's Disput Possevin in Atheismis and others The Reason is plain they hated them upon other Accounts and were resolved to
could be aimed at and designed and the 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 several †Mahometes 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 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 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 't is 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 't is 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 satisfied in it as in Christianity for 't is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 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
some late Men. Themselves confess Boethius his Definition of a Person Substantia Rationalis individua c. 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 Beings 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 my self 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 Worcesters late Book and that they were Proper and Real Persons and not only Modes Respects Characters Offices Names c. 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 Controversie as I hope will fully appear to all Learned and Impartial Readers of this Letter and especially to your Lordship to whose Candor and Judgment I commit it hoping you will pardon some things writ in great hast 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 Lordships Advertisement THe Errata's of the Press are too many to be particularized especially in the Greek the Learned and Candid Reader will easily see and Correct them Most Humble and Obedient Servant W. Payne 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 your selves satisfied about it so that were it not as Necessary both upon Publick and Private Reasons to satisfie the World too I could almost have wisht this Letter had not been printed at all it being writ hastily in a few dayes 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 subtilest Objections and like Fencers keeping their Eye upon their Adversaries and avoiding all their Thrusts However I could now have wisht 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 begg his and any other of my Brethrens 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 denyed 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 Catholick 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 thro' the hasty Zeal of an officious Constable or Informer when he has shown the mistake and clear'd himself to the Magistrates upon the strictest enquiry he will rather commend and thank 'em for their Zeal and Care of the Publick 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