Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	call_v	place_n	word_n	2,279	5	3.7334	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25775	A short history of Valentinus Gentilis, the tritheist tryed, condemned, and put to death by the Protestant reformed city and church of Bern in Switzerland, for asserting the three divine persons of the Trinity, to be [three distinct, eternal spirits, &c.] / wrote in Latin, by Benedictus Aretius, a divine of that church, and now translated into English for the use of Dr. Sherlock ...; Valentini Gentilis justo capitis supplicio affecti brevis historia. English	Aretius, Benedictus, d. 1574.; South, Robert, 1634-1716.	1696 (1696)	Wing A3629; ESTC R6675	62,571	156

Holy Ghost But 't is all perfect Calumny and God forbid the Church of Christ should be ever guilty of such a Blasphemous Position I think it needless to dwell any longer upon the Explication of the Word Trinitas since we have evidently demonstrated whatever Valentinus vainly pretends to the contrary that by a Trinity we understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something real or really subsisting and that the Catholick Creeds have not been unaccustom'd to the Word After the same lewd manner he plays upon the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often Styling them an Impertinant Iargon But he ought to have consider'd that it is not the least Excellence in the Art of Teaching to be able to give things their proper Appellations and that nothing can be a more evident sign of a malicious narrow Spirit than to wrap up our Knowledge in a Cloud of ambiguous dark expressions especially in treating of a Subject so highly Mysterious that no Human Understanding is able sufficiently to explain it For whatever we can say of God is too mean and falls much below the dignity of his immense and glorious Majesty So that the Ancients did wisely observe that we could much easier tell what God was not than what He was And that saying of Iustin Martyr well deserves our notice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. 'T is extreamly difficult to conceive aright of God but to express or declare him fully is impossible and therefore 't was piously said by Evagrius Socr. lib. 6. Hist. Trip. c. 21. That the ineffable Mystery of the Trinity was rather in silence to be ador'd than dogmatically to be explained Thus we call God a Substance tho' in Propriety of Speech he cannot be so Styl'd for a Substance is capable of being Defin'd but God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 boundless and not to be circumscrib'd within any limits of Words Therefore I think we ought to handle such a Subject with the greatest humility and reverence and to be extreamly cautious how we make use of any expressions but such as are receiv'd common and most applicable to it Because God is in the Scripture Styl'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Hebrew Iehovah from Eijeh so in the like signification from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as from Deus they call'd the Divine Essence Deitas so likewise did they express the Deity by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Greeks do otherwise use the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Riches Goods or Possessions as in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of your Goods or Money and by Philosophers 't is us'd to signifie that which is contradistinguished to an Accident viz. a Substance But amongst Divines and particularly in this Controversie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put to signifie the Divine Essence It was indeed long controverted whether this Word ought to have been rendred into Latin by Essentia or Substantia but the generality have thought Essentia to be the most proper Translation and therefore do by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 express the common Nature of the Godhead in the Trinity 'T is likewise the common Opinion of St. Austin lib. 7. de Trin. that it is more properly rendred by Essentia But says he whether you take it for Essence which is the proper or for Substance which is the corrupted Translation of the Word it still denotes something Absolute not Relative So again lib. 5. de Trin. c. 8. I call that Essence which the Greeks term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and presently after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. One Essence but three Subsistences And in the same Book cap. 2. Est tamen sinè dubitatione substantia vel fi meliùs haec appelletur essentia quam Graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant St. Ierom in some places retains the Word Usia as in his Book against Lucifer In others he Translates it by Substantia as in his Epistle to Damasus Sufficiet says he nobis dicere unam substantiem tres persones subsistenies perfectas aequales cooeternas In the same place he renders it Essentia as Deus essentiae nomen verè tenet and again Nomen essentiae sibi vendicat propriè Deus As to the Word Hypostasis in Profane Authors it signified the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does witness St. Ierom in his Epistle to Damasus And Socrat. in 6. lib. c. 21. Hist. Tripartit tells us out of Irenoeus Grammaticus that the more Modern Philosophers took 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express the same thing and this signification it retain'd amongst the Divines too for some time Socrates makes use of it Fol. 179. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he was not of a different Hypostasis or Substance but the same with the Father But at that time a Person was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the same Author lib. 1. c. 23. Another while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were taken for Synonymous terms as in that passage of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Confessing the Son to be an Hypostasis and subsisting in God and that there is one God in three Persons or Subsistences At last they did upon very good grounds limit the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Person only and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 became equivalent terms as in Latin persona subsistentia so that a Substance with personal Properties was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the time of St. Ierom the Controversie about this Word was still on foot which makes him call it a Novel expression and therefore seeing some call'd substance Hypostasis and others were us'd to say three Hypostases i. e. Three Persons He asks Damasus his Advice what to do in the business Si jube as says he non timebo tres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicere And 't is plain from the Hist. Tripar that the Fathers were very cautious in the using of these expressions and seldom did it unless in a case of great necessity Upon this account it was that the Bishops assembled with Athanasius did industriously let fall the Dispute about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 resolving to make use of those Words only against Sabellius and were therefore concern'd lest that for want of Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Subsistence might be mistaken one for the other Ruffinus says the same lib. 10. c. 29. At present some Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Subsistence others more significantly term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence for as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in Greek derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so in Latin essentia comes ab esse However I think 't is no great matter which way it

decay of strength in Human Nature as rendred it utterly incapable of raising it self to such a degree of purity without a peculiar dispensation from above And tho' within the Church this Doctrine of God has always remain'd more uncorrupted and perspicuous yet nevertheless the most Religious have thought it a great piece of Wisdom to confess their own weakness in this Affair and have therefore been contented with those Discoveries God has been pleas'd to make of himself and have desisted from any farther search into this Sublime Mystery Hence in the Invocation of him this Phrase is made use of God of Abraham God of Isaac God of Jacob God of our Fathers c. And when Iacob made too curious an Enquiry after the Angel's Name he was repell'd by the Rays of the Divine Majesty and reprimanded by a Voice Wherefore is it that thou askest after my Name Moses also upon his asking after the Name of God who sent him to the Children of Israel received only this answer I am that I am and say I am hath sent me unto you We ought therefore in this business also to take notice of the Apostle's Advice Not to think above what we ought to think but to think soberly For it 's most certain when we cast our thoughts on things relating to God our Understanding sees as little if not less than the Owl at Noon-day But since there is a necessity still of Man's being instructed concerning God and this instruction is to be receiv'd from the Church alone 't is the best way to keep strictly to one form of speaking drawn from the Prophetical and Evangelical Writings because the Church has taken these from God's own Mouth whence the Apostle calls the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or inspired And this the Church kept pure and undefiled till a parcel of Ambitious Men rose up who laying no restraint on their wild Fancies made a very ill use of the simplicity of the Scripture and began to affix New Interpretations to Texts To keep these Fellows within their Bounds and to shew that their Opinions were contrary to Scripture 't was necessary that better Men should limit the sense of things in other words Wherefore since Words were to be interpreted by Words and Phrases by other forms of Speech they referr'd themselves and their Writings to the Scriptures Forasmuch as no one can speak better of God than God doth of himself And therefore when we are to speak of him it 's our Duty to consult him first speaking of himself Moreover as it 's impious to deny the use of Scripture-Forms of speaking so it 's downright Malice to condemn those that are commonly receiv'd so long as reason proves not that they maintain any thing against Scripture In Ecclesiastical Histories and Acts of Synods there are abundance of Examples were they pertinent to be mention'd here of this Nature Our Age has seen one in Valentinus Gentilis who that he might destroy the Unity of the Divine Essence in his explication of the Three Persons quarrell'd first with the receiv'd Terms such as are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Persons For as long as they were made use of he saw 't was impossible to maintain three Spirits distinct in Essence and Degree This small Treatise shews the unanimous determination of the Church concerning this Doctrine together with the rise of that Corruption My Lords I present this History to your Lordships because you presided at the Tryal and it was to your grief that you heard this Corruption of the true Doctrine was brought into the Church And since the account might prove useful to the World 't was not fit it should be made publick so much upon my private Will as your Lordship 's publick Commands The Lord Jesus Christ govern you by his good Spirit that you may lead long and happy Lives in these Honourable Stations to the defence of the Orthodox Doctrine and the interest of your Country Amen M. D. LXVII Cal. Junii My Lords Your Lordships most humble Servant B. Aretius THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS CHAP 1. HOW and where Valentinus Gentilis fell into those New Opinions and what great mischief he did by spreading of them Chap. 2. Upon what account he was brought to Bern. Chap. 3. Concerning his Writings and the Heads of his Accusation Chap. 4. Whether he ought to have been heard as Plaintif Chap. 5. Containing some Propositions taken out of his Books of the Trinity which we judge to be false Chap. 6. An account of his Errors about the Article of the Blessed Trinity Chap. 7. Of these Words Trinitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what they do properly signifie Chap. 8. What was the Opinion of Arius and wherein Gentilis and he do agree Chap. 9. Concerning the Generation of the Son of God and how we ought to understand the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. 10. Whether or no it be proper to the Father to be call'd the One only God Chap. 11. The Iudgment and Consent of Scripture with respect to this Article Chap. 12. Gentilis's Censure of the Fathers and their Writings Chap. 13. The Iudgment of Justin Martyr and Philosopher Chap. 14. The Iudgment of St. Ignatius Chap. 15. The Iudgment of Tertullian Chap. 16. Concerning the Fathers especially St. Austin Chap. 17. Concerning the Communication of Attributes or Properties Chap. 18. Containing some of Gentilis's Notorious Blasphemies Chap. 19. Of the vile Scandals he hath falsly thrown upon the Doctrine of our Church Chap. 20. Of the Cheats and Impostures whereby he indeavor'd to impose upon good well-meaning People A Brief ACCOUNT OF Valentinus Gentilis c. CHAP. I. How and where he fell into those New Opinions and what great mischief he did by spreading of them VAlentinus Gentilis a Campanian having lest his Native Countrey Cosentia Travell'd through Naples Sicily and Italy and at last arriv'd at Geneva There were at that time in the Italian Church of that City several Persons out of all parts of Italy who came thither upon very different accounts but were mostly such as being Banish'd out of their own Country for the sake of Religion had made this their place of Refuge Amongst them were several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inventers of New Doctrines Such was G. Blandrata a Physician who had newly began to attack the Doctrine of the Trinity but as yet all he did was in private only and by way of Letters to some familiar Acquaintance The Dispute was concerning the commonly received Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trinitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. At the same time M. Gribaldus an eminent Lawyer and Paulus Alciatus a Milanese were engag'd in carrying on the same design Gentilis was no sooner come to Town and heard of the Controversie but he wholly applied himself to the Study of it And in a short

Immortal and survives after Death Yet because the Union of Soul and Body is that which makes the Man one hence it is that we affirm that of the whole Man which only agrees to one part of him So we say of Christ that he Suffer'd and is Dead which properly do not at all belong to the Divinity but agree to Christ as he is Man who is withal the same God and one and the same Christ. Here Gentilis cries out That we divide Christ and make a separation in him and yet allows that there are some properties which agree to the Word only before he took our Nature upon him Such is that Iohn 3. No one hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven the Son of man which is in heaven c. And Iohn 8. Before Abraham was I am And Heb. 1. By whom also he made the Worlds Now if as Gentilis grants these expressions can only agree to the Word before he was made Flesh I think it is plain that they are improperly attributed to the Human Nature and by consequence we rightly explain them by a Communication of Properties or Idioms And that we do not divide Christ nor make or maintain here any Separation is clear from the Doctrine of our Church wherein we do plainly acknowledge two Natures in Christ and yet without any confusion of the Natures the Personal Union making one and the same Christ the Son of God and the Blessed Virgin We likewise distinguish the Natures by their Properties but do not divide or separate them and by this means preserve whole and entire all the Offices of the Person of Christ. We say it is proper to the Human Nature to Weep to be Hungry to Sleep to Suffer to Dye to be circumscribed in a Place c. On the other hand it is proper to the Divine Nature to be impassible to make the Worlds to be with the Father from all Eternity before Abraham was c. We say that the Offices of Christ are to redeem Mankind to intercede for them to govern his Church and whatever else may be said to belong to Christ either as Prophet Priest or King Now Gentilis being able to deny nothing of all this 't is clear that he quarrels with the plainest expressions meerly out of heat and desire of Contention and doth therefore unjustly Style this Orthodox Doctrine such impertinent Trifles as deserve to be hiss'd out of the Church which he hath not only done in his Epistle Dedicatory to the King of Poland but hath also without any just or sufficient reason maliciously calumniated the same in the 12th Book of his Antidotes But there is yet at the bottom of all this something still more monstrously Heretical for he often affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had truly and properly Flesh and Blood that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was truly and properly Nail'd to the Cross and that the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did properly Suffer Now had this been said of Christ it had been without Controversie true but since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie only the Divine Nature in Christ which is united to the Human Nature in the Person of Christ he must necessarily think that either a Spirit hath Flesh and Bones which our Saviour himself hath positively deny'd or else that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was incorporated or rather turn'd into flesh or as the Monophysites did affirm both the Natures were made into one unless he will confess with us that 't is an improper way of speaking to say that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did Suffer or Dye whereby that is attributed to the Divine Nature which is proper only to the Human by reason of the Hypostatick union of both Natures in Christ which is what we call Communicatio Idiomatum CHAP. XVIII Containing some of Gentilis's Notorious Blasphemies ANother remarkable Instance of this Man's Impiety may be taken from that scurrilous impudent blasphemous Language he hath so freely bestow'd upon this most Sacred Mystery a Mystery that we ought rather in humility to adore than nicely to pry into It must be consess'd that even good Men do sometimes disagree in their Explication of Things and are not always of the same mind in their Interpretations of Scripture but yet they do it without railing without opprobrious Language and much more do they abstain from the blacker Crimes of Irreligion and Blasphemy 'T is no good sign of a Religious disposition to scandalize and bespatter the Subject in dispute and yet however Gentilis has been so liberal of his Railery that had he rak'd even Hell it self he could not have met with more dirty noisome Expressions nor more offensive to any Judicious Person He sticks not to call the Trinity an Idol the Tow'r of Babel a New Idol which we have erected above the Father a Tripersonate Mock-God a Diabolical Fictitious Person a Fictitious Propriety and Sophistical Person in a New God And pag. 8. An Imaginary Phantastick Person Pag. 28. he calls the Trinity Trium horrenda confusio Execrabilis Mixtura And pag. 33. says That we have invented this New God the Trinity out of our own Heads Pag. 39. he styles it a Fourth Idol which deserves to be thrust down into Hell And pag. 44. calls the first Person in the undivided Godhead a Magical Phantom an empty Spectrum that has begotten another Imaginary Person or meer Relation Antid 3. He calls the Deus Trinitas Nomen Monstrosum And pag. 56. he will have it be nothing but Magical Persons and Proprieties Again a Magical Propriety in a New Idol Pag. 34. The three Persons he calls Three Magical Impostures and the One God he styles a Fourth unknown Idol In his Printed Book Fol. 6. he calls the Trinity a meer human Invention diametrically opposite to the Truth of the Gospel The belief of a Trinity is perfect Sophistry And again the Trinity is Deus Trinomius a God only under three Names which last he seems to have borrow'd from Sabellius Again Fol. 8. The Trinity is call'd a New God indefinite Tripersonate a God which none of the Prophets or Patriarchs ever knew of which Christ never revealed nor the Apostles ever preach'd He styles our Blessed Saviour Christus tergeminus p. 14. of his Printed Book and in his Epistle to the Sons of the Church tells them Christ was transform'd into One which was not the Son of God Pag. 15. he calls him the Son of the Father that is says he of a meer empty Relation Then calls him a Tripartite Metamorphos'd Christ. God the Father he calls a fruitless idle unknown God But perhaps it will be said that these Railleries were design'd only against us not against the Mystery it self It is true indeed that Gentilis does generally endeavour to throw his Scandals upon us and bespatter our Doctrine with these abusive terms yet it can't be deny'd but that he is so