Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	bishop_n	council_n	nicene_n	3,055	5	12.2441	5	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

to the three Persons contending that we ought to say The Father Son and Holy Ghost are Unum but they are by no means Unus or one God Therefore when we say And yet not Three Eternals but one Eternal Gentilis will have this to be a grand mistake for that they are Three Eternal Spirits which cannot be One or Unus Thus I have briefly and with what plainness I could collected his Tenets out of his own Writings which likewise he has frequently own'd and endeavour'd to defend in common Discourse and Conversation In short the Sum of what he asserted is briefly this That the Father is one God the Son another God and the Holy Ghost a third God That they are all One Unum yet not unus Deus one God but three Subordinate Spirits that the Father only is properly to be call'd The One God who alone is of himself and strictly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here it is to be observ'd That when we say One God that Expression may be understood two ways First One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Essence Secondly One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Name only The first Acceptation he utterly rejects or else he could never defend Three distinct intelligent Substances The latter he allows of and recommends by a very pompous Exposition as that these Three Spirits are One in Consent in Will in Nature in Power in Dominion in Operations c. and to this sense he wrests whatever is said in Scripture concerning the Unity of the Godhead But the Universal Consent of the Catholick Church teaches us quite otherwise namely That God is One in Essence which one Essence subsists in three Persons In this sence hath the Church hitherto expounded the Apostles Creed I Believe in God But what God do you believe in Why in the Father Son and Holy Ghost Thus the Nicene Creed added the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Substance to express the Identity of Substance in opposition to the Blasphemies of Arius And the Creed of Athanasius in express terms tells us We must confess the Father Son and Holy Ghost not to be Three Gods but One God neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance And in this Trinity saith he none is afore or after other none greater or less than another but the whole Three Persons are coeternal and coequal so that in all things a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped By denying of this Gentilis hath been the occasion of introducing several dangerous and insufferable Errours into the Church CHAP. VII Of those Words Trinitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what they do properly signifie NOW because he quarrels with the word Trinity as us'd by us and every where confounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 using promiscuously the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 substantia essentia persona and hypostasis we will therefore briefly explain their proper significations For there is not an Arranter Piece of Sophistry than to use Words in a different sence from that wherein they have usually been received and taken 'T is true indeed we ought not to be over Nice in our Expressions and wrangle about Words when we are agreed as to the thing but what madness is it to Coin new Terms and cry down the old without any reason or necessity It is in my Opinion equally adviseable to retain the Language as well as to imitate the Manners of our wise Forefathers But to come to the business The Word Trinity in this Question does not signifie an Abstracted Number as when we say in Latin ternio quaternio in English three or four Units but it denotes an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something really existing thence it is that the Trinity was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conformably to which the Greek Fathers Gregory Nazianzen St. Basil Damascen and also the Latins do generally speak of the Trinity And therefore Gentilis is much in the wrong when he concludes because the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and the Trinity likewise God therefore there are four Persons of the Godhead and whoever asserts this must likewise assert a Quaternity not a Trinity We do absolutely deny the consequence For no body says that the Trinity as distinct from and without the Persons of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is God For the very being of the Trinity and of the Godhead too is in these three Persons and without them there can be neither Godhead nor Essence of the Godhead But the true consequence had been this the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and these three are One therefore there is in the Godhead a Trinity of Persons nor by asserting of this do we in any wise set up a new God or Idol But to proceed the Word Trinity was not without very good reason brought into the Church For the Bishops assembled with Athanasius at Alexandria as we are told by Sozomen l. 6. c. 20. Hist. trip to defend and establish the Decree of the Nicene Council concerning the consubstantiality of the Father Son and H. Ghost in opposition to the turbulent Arians sixt upon the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Trinity thereby intending to signifie the three Persons of the same Substance not dividing the Substance nor confounding the Persons And ever since the Word has been made use of by all Orthodox Councils as well as by the Greek and Latin Fathers Nay the Scripture it self speaks to the very same purpose Iohn 1. cap. 5. There are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father Son and Holy Ghost and these Three are One. And so likewise in the Baptism of Christ Mark 1. Mat. 3. and in the Institution of Baptism Mat. 28. there is plain mention made of three Persons 'T is therefore an impudent and a frontless rash Censure to call the Trinity a meer Human Invention utterly unknown to the Orthodox Creeds The Nicene Alexandrian and Ephesine Creeds are all confessedly Orthodox and yet all make use of the Word Trinity But here he replies they never acknowledg'd the Trinity to be a God I must profess I can't tell what he would be at with his Deus Trinitas If by it he understands a fourth Person it is one of his own making and we may justly explode both him and his fancy and he well deserves the Name of Impious Libertine that in a matter of so great importance dares fly to these wicked Cavils but if by Deus Trinitas he understands Deus Trinus or a Trinity in the Godhead 't is plain he has asserted a notorious falshood since we have already prov'd both Councils and Fathers to have us'd the Word Trinity in this Sence and that a Trinity in the Godhead was no Novelty to them Thus our Crafty Adversary would sain father upon us the Notion of a Deus Trinitas distinct from or without the Father Son and

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 Humbly Tendred to the Consideration of the Arch-bishops and Bishops of this Church and Kingdom London Printed and Sold by E. Whitlock near Stationers-Hall 1696. TO THE Most Reverend the Archbishops and the Right Reverend the Bishops of the Church of England My Lords I Here present your Lordships with a short Account of the Proceedings of an Eminent Protestant Reformed Church and State against a Noted Tritheist for asserting Three Eternal Spirits in the Blessed Trinity induced thereto by the late fatal Growth of Tritheism in our Church first vented and asserted in the same and yet higher Terms by Dr. Sherlock in his pretended Vindication of the Doctrine of the Ever Blessed Trinity in the Year 1690. And since that by one J. B. Minister of Folkstone in Kent and styling himself A Presbyter of the Church of England to the extream Disgrace of it in a Book written in Defence of the said Dr. Sherlock and his Tritheistick Notions upon the same Article in the Year 1695. and since that also openly preached in the very Face of the whole University of Oxon by one Mr. Joseph Bingham then a Fellow of University-Colledge there on the 28th of October in 1695. And lastly maintained and with great and even foaming Vehemence preached up in one of the most Eminent Cathedrals in England by one of the Prebendaries of the same first on the 30th Nov. 95. and since that on the 12th of January 9. Whose Name together with the Heterodoxyes then and there delivered by him are ready to be produc'd as there shall be occasion So that your Lordships can need nothing further either to alarm or convince you That the Enemy has been sowing his Tares amongst us while you see them so plentifully coming up even under your Eyes As for Dr. Sherlock he has over and over declared and lately again renewed the same Declaration viz. That the Three Divine Persons are Three distinct Infinite Eternal Minds or Spirits and that it is Heresie and Nonsence to judge otherwise For He it seems may take upon him to declare Heresie without a Reprimand And as for Presbyter I. B. of Folkstone he asserts the very same in Print And not only so but likewise to the flagrant Scandal of our Church * professedly owns and prefers Genebrard 's Tritheistick Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity as better and more Orthodox than that of Calvin and his Followers whom he charges with denying the Nicene Faith as to that part of it God of God which yet Bellarmine himself as much as he hated Calvin vindicates him from in his 2d Book de Christo and 19. Chap. To whom we may further add Beza Brentius and Zanchius with several other Eminent Divines of the Reformation All of them with the utmost Calumny reviled and condemned by this Genebrard while on the other side he positively vouches the horrid Opinions of Gentilis for sound and Catholick And besides all this at one stroke charges all the Reformed Churches both of France and Germany sometimes with Sabellianism and sometimes with Arianism as the Reader will perceive by the Quotations here tendred him on the side This Genebrard I say is the Person followed and defended by Dr. Sherlock's Defender J. B. and that as to his Doctrine of the Trinity as may be more particularly and fully declared in another place But in the mean time how these Encomium's bestowed by a Presbyter of the Church of England upon such a Furious Tritheistick Papist in so foul a manner traducing the Doctrine of most of the Protestant Divines and Churchis about the blessed Trinity will sound in the ears of the Reformed Churches abroad whom we have been so long professing to Court is left to the Bishops of this Reformed Church to judge For some indeed have shewn themselves very zealous to quit a great part of our Ecclesiastical Constitution in order to our Union with those Churches beyond Sea Tho I confess I could never yet hear That those Churches alledged the Rites and Ceremonies of our Church as any Bar to their Communion with it But howsoever they do or may stand affected to us I dare undertake that our quitting all the Ceremonies hitherto enjoyned and received amongst us as Ancient Decent and Inoffensive as they certainly are will not be half so powerful to draw them to us as the Asserting Three Distinct Infinite Eternal Minds or Spirits in the Blessed Trinity or countenancing those who assert them will be effectual to make them abhor loath and fly from our Communion And when they are once gotten to such a distance from us I fear we shall hardly get them back again but by quitting our Church-Livings and Preferments to them and then we shall be throughly Reformed indeed That Tritheism therefore is in a thriving condition amongst us cannot be denied nor so much as questioned And the Causes of it are manifestly these two First The great and advantagious Station held by that Person in the Church who first broached it here And Secondly The connivence which has ever since attended him in the Assertion of it The first of which has created him several Dependencies amongst some poor empty Retainers acted by Hope and Hunger as Hunger and Emptiness generally go together who to serve their Interest by his Favour easily turn Proselytes to his Opinions it being not Imaginable that they should open their Mouths so wide for him but to have them fill'd by him But such mischiefs must always be expected from Heterodoxy in High Place which is never so formidable for what it holds as for what it has to give For this still made the Pope an Over-match for a Council and may at any time give an overgrown Heretick the vantage ground of Truth Tho miserable no doubt must the state of that Church needs be where men shall wear her Favours so much to the prejudice of her Faith As for the other Reason of the Fatal spreading of this Poyson viz. The Connivence and Encouragement attending the Person who first vented it I shall not stick to affirm That he who asserts any thing contrary to the Received Doctrine of the Church how much soever he may be favoured or abetted dignified or distinguished is a scandal to the Gown he wears and an Insufferable Reproach to the Church he wears it in I very well know That the judicial Proceedings of the Church and Senate of Bern against that wretehed Thitheist Gentilis are no rule for us to proceed by who have Laws of our own which allow of no such severity as I am far from desiring that they should

be taken so that the sence be the same So then the common Nature or Essence of the Godhead is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to which God is One but the Persons are term'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this sence they are said to be three Hypostases that is Subsistences or they are three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Persons or as the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three Persons in one Substance Iustin Martyr and others call them tres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Gentilis in his Explication of the Trinity does not only confound the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but goes yet farther and places the distinction of the Three Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or their Substance When we told him that this was plainly against the sence of the Scripture and consent of Antiquity his Answer was that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not to be found expresly in Scripture which was as much as Arius himself could have said for St. Ierom against Lucifer tells us that this was the very Argument Valens and his Followers us'd to turn the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the Church and at the same time to condemn the Confession of the Nicene Council But we have already shewn how this Word was taken up in opposition to Sabellius And tho' our Author would fain be thought an indifferent Person between Arius and Sabellius yet he seems most to espouse the Cause of Arius CHAP. VIII What was the Opinion of Arius and wherein Gentilis and he do agree BUT since it is yet disputed by many what was the Heresie of Arius it will therefore be worth our while briefly to enquire into his Opinions Especially since matters are now come to such a pass that Men dare openly avouch That he was not Condemn'd for allowing the Father only to be God but rather for asserting the Son of God to be a mere Creature Here are then two Propositions Viz. First That the Son of God was a Creature Arius asserted this but Gentilis doth not Secondly That the Father alone is the One Most High God who dwells in Light inaccessible This Gentilis does affirm but Arius seems not to have Asserted it Gentilis takes a great deal of pains in stating the difference between these two Positions to avoid if possible falling in with Arius However if his Assertion be true and it belongs only to the Father to be styl'd the One only God I cannot for my part see any reason why he and Arius should keep at such a distance For according to Gentilis he would have said nothing but truth seeing he was never call'd in question by the Fathers for calling Christ the Son of God since that Assertion of his was true and undoubtedly Orthodox But if the difference be only in Words and the sense of both Propositions be the same there needs no proof that they agree in their Notions To make this appear let us enquire in what manner Arius his Opinion has been deliver'd down to us We find in Theodor. l. 1. cap. 4. Alexander Bishop of Alexandria making complaint that Arius and Achilles denied the Divinity of Christ. His Words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Denying the Divinity of our Saviour and making him of the same Nature with all other Men and presently after They attribute to him says he a Temporal Beginning For thus speaks Arius himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. There was a time when the Son of God was not c. His Opinion is related after the same manner Hist. Trip. lib. 1. cap. 13. Deus say they non semper Pater fuit non semper fuit Dei verbum sed fuit quando Deus non Pater fuit Dei autem verbum ex non existentibus factum fuit c. i. e. God was not always a Father nor did the Word always exist but there was a time when God was not a Father and the Word was made out of nothing To the same purpose Nicephorus lib. 8. cap. 8. Deus non semper Pater erat sed erat cùm Deus Pater non erat Non semper igitur Dei verbum erat sed ex non existentibus factum est Qui enim erat Deus illum qui non erat ex non existente fecit c. You may see more to this purpose in the same Book lib. 8. c. 18. From all which it does appear that Arius did in the first place divide the Essence of God making one Essence of the Father and another of the Son and after that assigning only a temporal Original to the Son and therefore he so earnestly condemn'd the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might carry his Point for the Separation of Essence And deny'd the co-eternity of the Son that he might thereby establish the Notion of his temporal Original From hence follow'd more monstrous Absurdities viz. That the Son of God was a mere Creature and that he was made out of nothing For they were very well satisfied that the Essence of God being the most simple and withal the most perfect of any could admit of no gradual division and therefore they assign'd the Son a separate Essence And now 't is easie to discover wherein he and Gentilis agree Arius said That there was One Essence or Substance of the Father and another of the Son Gentilis distinguisheth the Father from the Son not only in Person or Hypostasis but in Essence or Substance also Nor doth it at all alter the case in that he saith The Word was begotten of the Substance of the Father and is consubstantial with him In which 't is confess'd he differs from Arius but nevertheless introduces a separation of Substance Arius then says The Son was made out of nothing This Man tells us he was not made out of nothing but out of the Substance of the Father But in this they both agree That quoad essentiam as to his Substance the Son is Numerically distinct from the Father We are told by Niceph. lib. 18. c. 47 48. that Philoponus a famous Philosopher drove on the same Argument For by dividing the Indivisible Nature of God into more Persons he ascrib'd it to them severally as to Individuals and distributed it to those three Subsistences of a Supersubstantial Nature He was likewise a great Champion of the Monophysites who by reason there was but one Hypostasis or Person in Christ asserted that he had but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Nature also which was made of both the Divine and Humane as on the contrary Nestorius from the two Natures of Christ concluded that he likewise must necessarily have two Hypostases or Persons Again Arius asserted That the Father only was Eternal but that the Word had a beginning which likewise was the Opinion of the Philosophers Philoponus and Themistius see Niceph. lib. 18.

profane as in a vast many places plainly to condemn the Word Trinity although he makes use of it himself as is clearly prov'd by his Epistle to the King of Poland where in the sixth Page he complains that there were several Monstrous and Profane terms brought into the Church such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Person Essence Unity Trinity whereby all the Holy Mysteries of Religion were overturn'd and the knowledge of the Eternal God with his Son and Holy Ghost was quite lost In this charge he was led on by Gregorius Paulus who calls these two Phrases viz. The One Essence of God and One God in three Persons the Inventions and cunning Contrivance of the Devil But however since the Phrases these Men endeavour to explode have been the constant Language of the Church I think it needs no other demonstration to prove that Gentilis is not only Profane in his Expressions but makes use also of Diabolical Stratagems to overthrow the Establish'd Doctrine of the Church But the last and most plausible Argument which they use is this Gentilis complains to King Sigismund that Luther Zuinglius and Bucer were wholly taken up in demolishing the Outworks of Antichrist and that amongst so many thousand Reformers only Philip had attempted any thing in this Glorious Undertaking and that too so indirectly that he seem'd rather to threaten its ruin than to have given it any deadly wound To the same purpose Gregorius Paulus says That God began by Luther to demolish the church of Antichrist at the Roof not at the Foundation left the noisome stench of the Ruins should have stifled them And all this is because they left the Doctrine of the Trinity unattacked therefore they are said by them to have begun at the Outworks and the Roof not at the principal Fort and Foundation of Antichrist Thus these Witty Gentlemen are pleas'd to sport amongst themselves Yet after all it is certain that their quarrelling with these Words is only to find some means to escape and therefore it is that they fall so foul upon the Blessed Labours of those Good Men. Then they interpret every thing as they please and take the liberty of condemning whatever makes against them and hence it is that they endeavour to refine and new model the Language and Expressions of the Church which being a task far above their weak abilities rather than seem to be Nonplust they despitefully scatter such horrid Expressions and bitter Calumnies as no good Christian can hear without horrour and astonishment His Book to the King of Poland is fraught with such Elegancies and Ornaments as these and his common Discourse was wont to be set off with the like Embellishments so that he seems to please himself and hopes to raise his Reputation by this means CHAP. XIX Of the vile Scandals he hath falsly thrown upon the Doctrine of our Church GEntilis is very dextrous in Forging of false Accusations for he unjustly Charges our Church with several Crimes he will never be able to prove against her as First That we do Impudently deny Christ to have been the Son of God Secondly That we have unadvisedly brought a new God into the Christian Religion Thirdly That we affirm that God did not beget his Son of his own Substance If Cardinal Cusanus said any such thing let him look to it the Reform'd or Evangelick Churches are not bound to Answer for his Errors Fourthly That we made a Triple God contrary to the Authority of the Scriptures Abundance more of such sort of Stuff is contain'd in his Antidotes all which I here industriously avoid For what good Man can hear with patience such a Rascally Fellow thus sawcily abusing and undermining the Christian Religion Hence it is that he gives us the Titles of Opposers of God Iudaïzing Hereticks and as bad as Turks and passes the same Complements upon the Churches of Savoy also which yet he acknowledges to be the most Uncorrupted and best Reform'd of any he knew He compares us with the Turks and Iews for denying as he says with Mahomet that God did beget his Son But who can say that he ever heard amongst us That we devis'd another God Superior to the Father of Christ Who amongst us ever taught or affirm'd any such thing Hence he took that specious pretence of a Quaternity a thing that was never seen or heard of much less Worshipp'd in our Church He accounts our Faith to be meer Sophistry and our selves Novices and Sophisters yet gives no reason for it Thus this Crafty Fellow comically sports with us but the true reason is because we deny his Three Eternal Spirits and do say with Athanasius There is One Eternal One Almighty but that the Three Persons are three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Only three Subsistences And when we say Deus est Trinus or there is a Trinity in the Godhead he starts up as if he were Mad and cries out That we make the Trinity a Fourth God as if we asserted any Deus Trinitas besides or without the Father Son and Holy Ghost But this is certainly too gross and palpable a Calumny for we own the Trinity only to relate to these Three Persons and besides or without them there is neither God nor Trinity Of the same strain is his Calumny of our defending an unknown God Superior to the Father of Christ and making three Christs out of one We acknowledge and defend the God that was known and reveal'd to our Fathers but do set up no unknown God We know there is but one Christ in whom two Natures do conspire to make one Person and therefore we judge it to be Impious and Heretical to say there are three Christs or that Christ is Tergeminus But that Scandal is of a blacker Dye of our dividing Christ and transforming him into another which is not the Son of the Living God Let this Blasphemer shew us any other Christ besides that Son of God and let him make it out where and how we do divide Christ. Of the same Nature are those Impostures he charges us with of Conjuring up a new Christ the Son of a new Relation and then deceitfully believing him to be the Son of God We believe in the Son of God as reveal'd in the Scriptures but acknowledge none of Gentilis's Impostures We constantly assert without any deceit or fraud three Persons in the Godhead nor do we divide the Substance but do distinguish between the Persons He hits us in the teeth with Sabellianism whilst we do more justly charge him with the Blasphemy of Arius The Doctrine of our Church doth plainly prove that there is nothing in it agreeing with Sabellius whereas he blushes not openly to defend Arius and to prefer him before all the Fathers of the Nicene Council And however cautious he may seem to be in his keeping the middle way between Arius and Sabellius yet I am perswaded his Opinions are

bereaved of all his Shifts Meanings and Subterfuges and Sheeps Cloathing besides the University has him now in full Chase and 't is hoped will not give the Chase over till it has run him down Some of the grosser Errata of the Press are thus to be Corrected s for f frequently PAg. 1. l. 5. for produee r. produce p. 8. l. 19. for I am r. I AM. p. 18. in the Margent for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men l. 26. for Pennancae r. penance p. 44. l. 6. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 48. l. 1. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A. p. 54. l. 22. for personies subsistenies r. persones subsistentes p. 70. l. 29. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 85. l. 13 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with one Accent p. 90. l. 10. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 91. l. 22. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 94. l. 5. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 11. for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. and then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 97. l. 8. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * See Dr. Sherlock's Examination of the Oxford Censure p. 46. I am not afraid says he to commend Genebrard and Petavius before Calvin and his Followers who denied the Nicene Faith of God of God See pag. 6. of his Preface against Tritheism Charged c. Note That this book of Genebrard has not the Numeral Mark upon every Page but only upon every Leaf of it * Unus ille Spiritus Essentialiter est Tres Spiritus personaliter Geneb contra Schegkium de Trinitate fol. 53. p. 2. And again Tres sunt aeterni Spiritus quorum unusquisque per se Deus est fol. 54. p. 1. * Tres Personas says Geneva to Schegkins Uni essentiae affigis ut Synagogis Gallicis Germanicis placeas quos jam Omnes Sabellians Scelere Contaminatas atque Conspurcatas docui Geneb fol. 131. And again Illud est quod Ecclesiam à Te vestrisque Synagogis separat quas omnes Arrtano vel Sabelliano Scelere irretitas meridie ipso clarius demonstravi clarissie demonstrabo in Opere quod contra istum Apostatam Zanchium parturio fol. 144. p. 2. ☞ * When the Nominal Trinitarians have call'd till they are hoarse weary and asham'd to Universities and Bishops to espouse their Cause and Censure the real Trinitarians c. All their Appeals notwithstanding it will not be long e're they are told by their-Superiors in the Church That it is expedient for them to be quiet lest themselves be Censured as Sabellians Answer to Dr. Bull p. 68. col 1. ☞ ☜ ☞ See Dr. Sherl taking the same Course since as appears from these Words The Truth is That which has confounded this Mystery viz. of the Trinity has been the vain endeavour to reduce it to Terms of Art such as Nature Essence Substance Subsistence Hypostasis and the like Vind. Trin. p. 138. l. the last and page 139. l. the first So that Dr. Sherl may find sevaral 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Antienter than himself ☞ So says Philoponus Joachim and Dr. Sherlock with the rest of the Tritheistick Tribe Calvin says that he had most perfidiously for sworn himself Thrice But Tritheists must be allowed to have more skill in dealing with an Oath than other Men. See Calvin's Narrative of Gentilis in his Opuscula p. 764. St. Hilary * Particularly by Genebrardus See the account given of him by Calvin in his Opuscula As Dr. Sherlock and his Tritheistical Followers now do in England Andtherefore not preached from thence before their Universities nor written against by One only amongst them and no more * Much like Dr. Sherlock's Modest Examination c. So does Dr. Sherlock * And those I suppose passed in their respective Convocations ☞ ☜ ☜ The fourth and sixth are Dr. Sherlock's Doctrine expresly * Perhaps he meant Gypsie-Cant and meer Gibberish * So that we see Three Eternal Spirits are but an old Story and Vented long before the Year 1690. * Dr. Sherlock defends the very same * He might have added in Mutual Consciousness too Let Dr. Sherl and his Party give a satisfactory Answer to this if they can * Or that the Godhead Subsists by it self out of the Persons but actually and wholly in the Persons and not otherwise ☜ * Or a Trinity which is God * What not explained by Self-Consciousness and Mutual Consciousness which we are told makes a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity a plain easie and Intelligible Notion and Solves all difficulties about it Sh. Vin Trin. * Since condemned and equally exploded by Dr. Sherl Theod l. 1. c. 6. ☜ Augustin lib. 15. de Trin. cap. 17. Vide Erasmi Observat. * Which may be Communicated indeed but yet not Made nor Created according to this latter sence of the Word * Viz. in all the Senses of the Word ☞ * Nor Multiplication * And of Mutual Consciousness too Isaiah 44. * Iust no doubt as his Successor Dr. Sherlock intends to do in the Account he has promised us out of the Fathers of his Tritheistick Hypothesis of 3 distinct Infinite Minds in the Blessed Trinity * The true Tritheistical Dialect * And at this day we have such another amongst us ☞ ☞ Pag. 62. P. 30. P. 6. P. 7. * Did the Father beget a Mode and call it his Son says Dr. Sh. Vin. Trin. p. 84. * Dr Sherlock perfectly agrees with him in this Assertion * Dr. Sherlock 's constant Charge upon such as deny Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits in the Trinity * Viz. Such as Genebrard a Sorbon Doctor who to his Eternal Infamy both defended Gentilis and asserted Three distinct Eternal Spirits in the Trinity See his Answer to Skegkius de Trinitate fol. 53. p. 2. * So that Gentilis suffered just according to his own Conditions ☜ The Sentence of Condemnation passed upon Gentilis * Viz. Three distinct Eternal Spirits For so it is in the 6th Proposition set down in the 5th Chapter and in the 6th also where he says the Father Son and H. Gh. Tres sunt aeterni Spiritus qui unus esse non possunt * Valentinus Gentilis a great Abjurer * This Genebrard very learnedly calls Crematus est fol. 54. And Ultricibus flammis Traditus fol. 52. Dr. Sherlock's Language all along * Our Answer to him is and ought to be the same tho' God be thank'd the Tongue of a Tritheist be it never so false is no slander * How much better does it fare with Tritheism in England Which tho' it lost its Head at Bern lifts up its Head as high as Pauls here