so many known Accusers Fourthly Because he had endeavour'd to undermine one of the prime Articles of our Faith an Article so essential to the very being of Christianity that in the worst and darkest times of Popery it still continued pure and uncorrupted And Lastly Because the leading Assertors of this new Doctrine had not yet agreed upon their Principles For according to his own Confession Blandrata turn'd Arian Alciat a Mahometan and himself and Gribaldus were still of different Opinions For when our Confession was tender'd him to which Gribaldus had formerly subscrib'd he disapprov'd and condemn'd it withall affirming Gribalaus to have committed a grievous Sin by subscribing it Upon these Accounts he was debarr'd from being a Plaintiff whether justly or not let the World judge and commanded to give in a particular Answer to the Articles preferr'd against him CHAP. V. Containing some Propositions taken out of his Books of the Trinity which we judge to be false AND now we desire the whole Church of God and the Piety of all succeeding Ages to judge of the following Positions wherein he does either by an impudent prevarication scandalize and bespatter us or which is far worse impiously blaspheme God And first He calls the Trinity a mere human Invention not so much as known to any Catholick Creed and directly contrary to the Word of God Secondly he affirms That the Father alone is that One only God set forth to us in the Holy Scriptures Thirdly That the Son is not of himself but of the Father to whom He is Subordinate as to his Maker or Essentiator Fourthly The Father Son and Holy Ghost are not only three distinct Persons but have also Three distinct Essences or Substances Fifthly The Son was begotten by the Father according to his Substance and differs from the Father as a Subordinate Spirit Sixthly There are in the Trinity Three Eternal Spirits each of which is by himself God Seventhly That these three Spirits differ from each other in Order Degree and Propriety of Essence CHAP. VI. An Account of his Errors about the Article of the Blessed Trinity THE adorable Mystery of the Trinity is the constant Subject that runs thrô all his Writings A Subject which he handles after such a rate as that he seems neither to have thought nor wrote of any thing else for the space at least of 8 Years last past In all which his principal design is to advance such a distinction in the Divine Essence as might make the three Persons three distinct Spirits of different order and degree As when we say The Father of our Lord Iesus Christ is a Person in the Individual Trinity Gentilis will have this to be false and that we ought to say The Father of our Lord Iesus Christ is that one God is God alone Again when we say Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God Eternal he here accuses us of Heresie telling us The Father alone is God of himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not begotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Maker of all things Essentiator But that the Son was made Essentiatus or received his Being from another is indeed God but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so likewise the Holy Ghost and by consequence that they are not One but Three Eternals Again when we affirm that one God is to be Worshipp'd in Trinity and Trinity in Unity this Pious plain Proposition he calls mere Cant and perfect Sophistry and plainly affirms pag. 20. of his Antidotes That there are three Spirits really Subsisting There are says he Antid fol. 27 and 28. therefore Three because three Eternal Spirits And explains himself pag. 70. They are says he Three Eternal Spirits distinguish'd by a gradual and due Subordination And though he grants the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be three Persons of the same Nature yet he adds They are distinct in Order Degree and Propriety to explain which he affirms That it is proper to the Father to be styl'd the One only God by which explication the Son and Holy Ghost are manifestly excluded from the Unity of the Godhead But he fancies there is a kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Self-existence which belongs to the Father only that cannot be attributed to the Son Hence it is he styles the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. God of himself as he is more eminently truly and properly God but the Son is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a secondary and different sort of God whence he infers That the Son is not of himself but of God the Father who alone is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself p. 54. and p. 161. That God the Father is in the Scriptures call'd the only God Invisible most High and the God of Christ or of the Word Incarnate Again p. 82. the Son is Subordinate Essentiatori to him that gave him Being and so he makes the Father Essentiator and the Son Essentiatus and by consequence the Father to be properly God and the Son only a Subordinate inferiour God Whereas we on the contrary do admit of no degrees in the Godhead and do positively assert That the Essence of God is but one single Essence not Subordinate or capable of Superiority and Inferiority However to bring himself clearly off here he saith that when he affirms The Father is the One only God this ought to be referred wholly to his Self-existence not to his Numerical Substance But who can't easily discern that this pitiful shift is too weak to support his tottering Cause For still this Absurdity will remain to wit That the Son is not Self-existent and which is yet a plainer contradiction 't will follow that the Son with the Father is one God and yet that the Father alone is this one God likewise that the Essence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Godhead is common to all three Persons and yet Self-existence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is peculiar to the Father Farther when we say and yet they are not three Gods but one God he cries out upon this as an abominable Errour forasmuch as these Words one God are to be understood of and applied to the Father only exclusive of the Son Antidote 5. he pretends that we ought not to say these three are one God Unus Deus but only Unum For that all three have indeed but one Godhead but yet are not all three one God And shortly after he adds The Father alone is the One God and shews pag. 50. that the word One belongs not to the Unity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Substance or Essence but to the Self-Existence to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Father And then concludes pag. 59. that Christ is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God of himself and scornfully upbraids us with wresting the Term Unus proper only to the Father to signifie the Unity of Essence belonging
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.
But afterwards he adds by way of Explication therefore there are not three Fathers nor three Sons nor three Holy Ghosts but one Father and one Son and one Holy Ghost and proves this Trinity from the Institution of Baptism in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost not into any one that had three Names nor yet into three that were made Men but into three of the same Majesty for there is one only who was made Man neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost but only the Son who was not so by estimation or in appearance only but in truth and reality for the Word was made Flesh and dwelt therein So that here St. Ignatius does plainly oppose the Patripassians and such like Hereticks but does not in the least favour or patronize Gentilis his Notion In the very same Epistle disputing against the Patripassians he writes thus And again How doth it appear unto you that Christ was not Born of the Virgin Mary but that it was he the Father who is God above all and Almighty Who then was it that sent him Tell me who was he that rul'd over him Whom did he obey or whose Law did he fulfill You who would have him yield to no one's Command or Power do separate Christ from him that begat him you make the Unbegotten to have been Begotten and him that was without Beginning to have been nailed to the Cross. Which is all said by him in direct opposition to the Patripassians or Sabellians In the same Epistle he brings in Christ disputing against the Devil I know says he and have known One only God whom I do not refuse to Obey but thou hast prov'd an Apostate and Rebel to him for I am not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. contrary to God but I acknowledge his Soveraignty and do not refuse to Worship him whom I know to have been the Author and Lord of my Nativity and only Preserver for I live in and through the Father c. But these are the Words of Christ Incarnate who owns himself in respect of his Humanity to be inferior to the Father For if these Words were to be understood with respect to the Divine Nature how could Christ be said to live propter Patrem or rather Per. seeing he as God is Self-existent or hath life in himself and power to lay it down In his Epistle to the Philadelphians he Exhorts them to Union and draws his Arguments from the Unity of the Flesh and Blood of Christ from the Mystical Union of the Bread and Wine and likewise from the Unity of the Father and the Son His words are these Because there is one Father Unbegotten and one only Begotten Son God the Word and Man and one Holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth also one Gospel one Faith one Baptism and one Church By which words he only urges them to Unity and Concord in the Church Hence he makes this conclusion Therefore it behoov'd them as a chosen People a Royal Priesthood and an Holy Nation to be perfected in Love and Concord To the same purpose is what he says in this Epistle against Ebion who made Christ a meer Man and therefore he shews That Christ was God begotten of the Father which contains no absurdity in it unless violently wrested by a faithless Exposition In his Epistle to Polycarp Here says he is the Race here the Crown wait for Christ the Son of God who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Time and yet Born in Time Thus Damascene and others call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius adds That as God he was Impassible not capable of Suffering but that as Man he was Passible and did suffer for our sakes And what can Gentilis say against this Will he say that Christ as God did suffer And that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as such had properly Flesh and Blood St. Ignatius is of another mind and doth plainly and Orthodoxely distinguish the two Natures under or in the one Person of Christ. The one of which namely the Divine is properly and per se Impassible but the other viz. the Human is properly Passible Gentilis confounds these Proprieties of the two Natures and affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had himself all these Affections Christ indeed has properly Flesh and Bones and Blood being truly and properly Incarnate But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Nature in Christ has no such properly in it self In his Epistle to the Antiochians he says That we ought not to deny Christ under pretence of asserting One God and brings several Testimonies out of Scripture as Deut. 6. Isai. 44. Gen. 1. 17. which do all speak of One God and at the same time express different Persons as when Moses saith The Lord rain'd fire and brimstone from the Lord and yet in other places saith There is but One God which Unity doth not exclude the Son and Holy Ghost whom he on the contrary includes with the Father in the Unity of the Godhead So that a Trinity of Persons doth not at all interfere with the Unity of Essence And at the end of that Epistle he truly distinguishes the Properties of the Persons May he protect and defend you says he who is the Only unbegotten God speaking of the Father through him who was begotten before all Ages i. e. Through the Son whose property it is to be begotten But here Gentilis objects the last clause of this Epistle viz. Valete Deo Christo as if these were different and the Father alone was call'd God but Christ Dominus or Lord so as to be excluded from the communion or fellowship of the only God In his Epistle to the Ephesians he commends them for being one Body and adds this Argument for their Union for says he there is one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of us all But it is not Ignatius's Opinion that the Father was the Only one God no more doth it appear from the following sentence of his Medicus noster est Solus verus Deus Deus ingenitus For if these Epithets were to be understood of the Father only the Son would not then be our Physician But St. Ignatius distinguishes the Persons here only by their Proprieties for a little after he calls Christ our Physician impassible in a passible Body CHAP. XV. Concerning the Iudgment of Tertullian TErtullian without doubt is to be read with a great deal of caution as Gentilis himself confesses and therefore it is the easier for him either to pass by and reject his Authority as he pleases or else to extol and commend it as occasion serves But Tertullian as in many other places so particularly in his Book against Praxeas is very Orthodox where he expresly says of the Persons in the Trinity that numerum sine divisione patiuntur They allow of number without division And afterwards Ubique teneo unam substantiam in tribus cohoerentibus I do always acknowledge one
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
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
c. 50. Gentilis tells us The Son of God was begotten by a precedent act of Generation which if true then must his being begotten have succeeded in order of time To prove this he doth with his usual confidence quote that passage of Tertullin Non ideo Pater judex semper quia Deus semper Nam nec Pater potuit esse ante filium nec judex ante delictum Fuit autem tempus cum ei delictum filius non fuit i. e. God is not therefore always a Father and a Judge because he always was God For he could not be a Father before he had a Son neither could he be a Judge before there was a Criminal But there was a time when neither Criminal nor Son did exist In this Opinion he agrees with Tertullian and by consequence is a Partizan of Arius For it signifies not a farthing from whom this Sentence is quoted whether from Tertullian or any body else since it 's plain it gives us the true Sentiments of Arius From what has been said it appears That Arius and he are of the same Opinion in these two particulars Viz. 1. In dividing the Substance or Essence of the Godhead And. 2. In making the Act of Generation in order of time antecedent to the Existence of the Son which exactly agrees with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Arius CHAP. IX Concerning the Generation of the Son of God and how we ought to understand the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IN the next place Gentilis appeals to those Texts of Scripture wherein the Generation of the Son of God is reveal'd to us as Iohn 1. We saw his Glory the Glory as of the only Begotten of God and Psal. 2. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee which place is cited by St. Paul Act. 13. and the Apostle 1 Heb. 5. Then Gentilis farther concludes That Begotten is therefore distinguish'd from Unbegotten because the one hath always a beginning the other hath none Again that the Father is therefore call'd ingenitus Unbegotten because he derives his Original from none but all things had their Beings from him But the Son is therefore said to be Begotten because he had his beginning from the Father upon which account the Father is styl'd the Essentiator Being and the Son the Essentiated Spirit This is his way of Arguing and I think any one that has but half an Eye may plainly see how Arius his Argument lies couch'd under it For whosoever hath read Nicephorus Theodoret and the other Ecclesiastical Writers cannot be ignorant that this was the very Argument Arius and his Followers made use of In Answer to which we freely allow and acknowledge the Generation of the Son of God and readily grant that the Father is unbegotten the Son begotten but moreover we assert that this Generation was without beginning of Time and is of such a Nature as transcends the Capacities and Apprehensions of all Mortal Men. For the Word was in the Beginning and all things were made by him which Word is afterwards call'd the Only begotten Son of God Of the same Word the Prophet speaks when he says The dew of thy birth is of the womb of the Moruing which passage the Jews themselves confess to have been spoken with respect to the Eternal Generation of the Messias Therefore Gentilis his Argument is by no means conclusive This way of Generation being wholly inexplicable and without any beginning of Time by consequence there is no prius nor posterius no succession in it but the whole coeternal together How audacious then is the Mind of Man that dares pry into and endeavour to explain these hidden things of God If neither Ear hath heard nor Eye seen neither hath it enter'd into the Heart of Man to conceive those things which God hath prepared for them that love him How much more ought that Mystery of the Eternal Son of God and that of his Eternal Generation rather to be ador'd than fathom'd But let us see how the Ancients express'd their thoughts about this matter Theodoret in Book 4. cap. 1. tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. That God did not beget his Son in time nor after a certain season or period and in the same place he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Immutable Filiation Again he confesses the Son of God was begotten but it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an unspeakable inexpressible inconceiveable undeterminable manner by which words it plainly appears that the Ancients look'd upon this as a very great unfathomable Mystery They did likewise call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby to shew that his Generation was without beginning as may be seen in Damascene and in Theodoret in the place above cited And Socrates in his 1. l. c. 8. has a passage importing the very same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. By a mode of Generation inexpressible and unconceiveable by any created Nature From all which I think we may well conclude the Manner of the Generation of the Son of God to be truly ineffable incomprehensible and undeterminable Whereby it follows that the Word was begotten out of all time and before all time That the Son was always with the Father That God always was a Father and that there never was any time wherein the Son was not As for any other ways of explaining this Generation the Catholick Church and all Christian Writers Iustin Martyr Irenoeus and others have constantly rejected and exploded them A few of which I shall just glance upon Some would have the Son to descend from the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by division This seems to have been the Opinion of Philosophers who parted the Divine Essence into several Persons just as if out of the same Mass of Gold you would cleave two or three Bars or as you would divide any one totum into two or three parts Sic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Others were for having it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. by Germination as we see Scions bud out from Trees Others thought it might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by efflux or emanation as Children are naturally begotten of their Parents Others call'd it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. by eructation as may be seen from Arius his Epistle in Theod. l. 1. c. 6. And lastly there were others who believ'd it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by alteration of Substance See Socr. Book 1. c. 6. All these ways were rejected by Antiquity and the Arians too tho' for a different reason namely that they might hereby explode the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Consubstantiality Of which see Nicephor l. 8. c. 18. Their Argument ran thus The Son of God is not born of the Father neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor
Substance in the Three thus united Gentilis says that in these and the like places Tertullian spoke waveringly and will have them refer to Montanus his Paraclete which notwithstanding all this are very Orthodox But on the contrary we say that Tertullian against Hermogenes did not only speak doubtfully but did actually make use of the Phrases and Expressions of Arius when he says There was a time when the Son of God was not which saying must of necessity be extreamly well lik'd by Gentilis as that which doth make the Son posterior to the Father in the order of the Godhead But it is plainly an Arian expression the same with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we have already mention'd out of Nicephorus lib. 8. cap. 8. But Tertullian doth often recollect himself and not only makes use of proper expressions but seems likewise to be Orthodox enough in his Notions as in the same Treatise against Hermogenes he says Divinitas gradum non habet utpote unica The Divinity or Godhead can admit of no degrees as being but one These and the like passages do sufficiently demonstrate that Tertullian acknowledg'd no separation no division in the Godhead but yet in respect of the different Persons he did allow of a Numerical distinction And thus much we thought fit to take out of Iustin Martyr Ignatius and Tertullian these being the Fathers to whom Gentilis lays so great a claim as if they were wholly Patrons of his Opinion I shall not concern my self much with any of the others since the Opinions of Hilary and Irenaeus are too well known to give any one just occasion to suspect that they were favourers of this Pestilential Error and those passages Gentilis quotes out of them are answer'd by the Authors themselves Nor shall I at present bring any Quotations out of the many other both Greek and Latin Writers since Gentilis rejects all their Authorities CHAP. XVI Concerning the other Fathers especially St. Austin GEntilis then without any distinction rejects all other both Greek and Latin Writers and who cannot but wonder at the daring confidence of such a Fellow Here we have a censorious Upstart who like another Aristarchus boldly arraigns and condemns all Antiquity unless they will acknowledge Three Eternal distinct Spirits in the Divine OEconomy and all the three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled in the Nicene Council must be herded amongst the Hereticks because they confess'd but One God Eternal He prefers Arius before them all would he but have admitted the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as newly explain'd by himself But I will not oppose him with fallible Human Authority seeing we may easily consute this Blasphemous Error out of the Scripture it self And Arius whose wicked Spirit seems now to revive in or to rest upon this Monster of Iniquity was condemn'd of Old and confuted not by Human Authority but from the Holy Scriptures and Consent of the Church My design being Historically to make it appear that this wicked Man has set up a new Interpretation of Holy Scripture and to gain his Point the easier has without any modesty or civility taken liberty to rail at and calumniate not only the Fathers but likewise all the Orthodox Councils However he ought either to have submitted to such approv'd Authors and to the Consent of the Church or else to have confuted them out of the Word of God This he does not but cites some few places of Scripture upon which he puts a new Interpretation and when we deny this to be the true meaning of them and assert That the Church of God did never understand those places in such a manner and for proof of it appeal to all the Authentick Writers both amongst the Greeks and Latins he cries out That we are a parcel of Dogmatical Pedants and Hereticks and presently flies over to Arius and the Bishops which follow'd him as if there were a better Interpretation of Scripture amongst them than there is in Athanasius and those who approv'd of his Confession of Faith He treats St. Austin in a very scurrilous manner no ways deserv'd by so excellent a Writer He charges him as well as us with holding a Quaternity a Notion he never was so Phantastick as to dream of He styles that Reverend Father an Enthusiastick Writer a Magician and a Sophister such calumnies as he never receiv'd at the hands of his most Mortal Enemies The Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity he calls an Imaginary Being an Ens rationis and St. Austin's Goddess which is downright abominable Blasphemy And notwithstanding all this our crafty Scribler to reconcile himself to St. Austin and wipe off the Odium such rude expressions must necessarily bring upon him at last gravely pronounces this Oracular saying That he believes were St. Austin now alive and could enjoy but this clear light of the Gospel he would with his own hands throw his Books of the Trinity into the Flames A thing very likely indeed that St. Austin shou'd take Example from this vile Man and Perjure himself as he hath done But of this enough CHAP. XVII Concerning the Communication of Attributes or Proprieties THE Scripture speaking of the Son of God doth attribute that to one of his Natures which doth properly belong to the other as Ioh. 3. No one hath ascended up into heaven but the Son of man who is in heaven Christ indeed as he was the Son of Man could not then be in Heaven when he spoke these words nor did he take his Flesh from Heaven But all this is proper to the Divine Nature only and may be truly affirm'd of whole Christ by reason of the Personal Union of the Word with Man By a like form of Speech we say that God suffer'd and died for us which are very improper expressions if strictly taken since God cannot properly be said to suffer or to dye and therefore we use to add by way of Explication that it was in Carne assumptâ in the Flesh that he assum'd This way of speaking the Ancients call'd Communicatio Idiomatum or the Communication of Properties others call'd it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Damascene styles it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if we should say by way of Exchange or Mutual distribution whereby we attribute that to the Human Nature which is proper to the Divine as to be in Heaven before the Incarnation or when contrariwise that is attributed to the Divine Nature which is proper only to the Human as to Dye and to Suffer or else we affirm that of the whole Person which is truly and properly said because Christ in his Human Nature did dye thô not in his Divine Nor is this way of speaking in any wise improper or absurd For don't we in respect of us Mortals upon the very same account say That such a Man is dead thô this cannot be properly said of the whole Man for Man is Mortal only in respect of his Body his Soul is