Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostle_n	church_n	creed_n	2,605	5	10.2206	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

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

the only God therefore the Father only is Good For Christ speaks exclusively Why callest thou me good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One God is the proper appellation only of the Father Therefore the Father only is Good Nor will he be ever able to extricate himself out of this Labyrinth unless he doth affirm that Christ may be said to be good also by Communication but the Father only to be properly and originally Good which is intolerable Blasphemy for it distinguisheth Christ from his Goodness as well as from his Divinity But the true way of Arguing would have been thus He that is properly and of himself good must necessarily be the one true and only God which we gather from Christ's own Words None is good but the One God But the Son and H. Ghost are properly and per se Good therefore they with the Father are that one Only true God from whom all things in the World which we call Good do derive their goodness and hold it at his Pleasure All the Cavils about the Father alone 's being the one Only God do wholly vanish and are dispell'd by this one Argument Besides this there are several other Testimonies to be found in the Scripture as in Isaiah 44. The One God is said to be the first and the last which Noble Character Gentilis understands to have been given only to the Father but he is confuted by St. Iohn who Revel 1. 22 23. gives the very same Titles to Christ from whence we may conclude That Christ is also comprehended under this Character of the One God Nor shall we ever be convinc'd of the contrary from his saying That Christ was call'd the first and the last only in respect of the Creatures Again the Word in the New Testament is call'd not a fictitious but a true God Joh. 1. But there is but One true God the Author both of the Old and New Covenant therefore the Word is comprehended under the Character of the One God who is the Author of the Covenant Again this One and Only God is call'd the True and Only Saviour Is. 43. 11. But if we believe Gentilis the Word in the New Testament is not the One and Only God by consequence neither will the Word be our Saviour which is not only false but blasphemous also For Ioh. 1. Andrew says We have found the Messias speaking of Christ or the Word Therefore the Minor which was of Gentilis's making is false Again There is no other God Elohim besides the Lord Iehovah but the Word according to Gentilis is not that One Only Lord Iehovah therefore he is not the true Elohim or God which conclusion is abominably absurd and by consequence so is that Proposition also of Gentilis from whence it follows Lastly The Word is in the New Testament call'd a Creator Colos. 1. Ioh. 1. but that is a Propriety of the only One God therefore the Name of the one Only God belongs to the Son also From these and the like places of Holy Scripture it 's easie to demonstrate how absurd and how impious a Doctrine it is to assert That the Father only exclusive of the Son is call'd the One Only God seeing on the contrary it has been the constant Faith of the Church That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are that One True and Only God reveal'd to us in the Scriptures I say One God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in Essence subsisting in three Persons Nor need we trouble our selves with that Soveraignty of Divine Essence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since in the Trinity there is a perfect equality none is greater or less than none is afore or after another Unus idem Deus Pater 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ejus semper assistens humane generi as says Irenoeus lib. 4. c. 47. But that Soveraignty which we oppose and deny introduceth an inequality of prius posterius of majus minus or of Order and Majesty in the Divine Essence and therefore is justly exploded In the mean time we are not ignorant how Christ in respect of his Human Nature and his Office of Mediator is inferior to the Father and is also so styl'd in Holy Scripture But this is nothing to the purpose since the inequality we expose is not in the Persons but the Essence of the Deity CHAP. XII Containing Gentilis his Censure of the Fathers and their Writings WE have now shewn our Doctrine of the Trinity to be agreeable to the sence of Scripture and the Orthodox Creeds We have made it plain how Gentilis by new and forc'd Expositions doth wrest the meaning of Scripture to establish his Notions and with like improbity doth Expound the Creeds also For not daring to deny the Authority of the Apostles Creed he hath by a wrong punctation falsly Interpreted it he safely despises and rejects the other Creeds and treats the Fathers with the same respect He upbraids Athanasius with corrupting the Nicene Creed and blushes not to call Athanasius his own Creed mere impertinent Jargon pag. 30. St. Augustin he calls a Dogmatical Pedant and others of them he bespatters with a great many more such Complements But however lest he should seem to have no part of Antiquity on his side he flies to all the Ancients and right or wrong hales them in to vouch for him But his principal Friends are Iustin Martyr Ignatius Tertullian Irenoeus and Hilary Yet he hath not so great a veneration for them neither but he can upon occasion despise reject and discard them also so that upon the whole he seems to claim nothing as his peculiar Talent so much as that excellent qualification which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Subtile Craftiness to distinguish his Cause by wresting the Law Wherefore we will now demonstrate and maintain our Doctrine out of those very Fathers he admits for Authentick whereby it may easily be observed how craftily he does abuse both their Authority and judgments in order to the Establishing his own Opinion CHAP. XIII Containing the Iudgment of Justin Martyr and Philosopher Iustin Martyr an Excellent Writer and who liv'd near the Times of the Apostles is very Orthodox as to the Article of the Trinity unless it be when his Words are maliciously wrested to the new way of Expounding Scripture For the better understanding therefore of this Father we must observe that his Writings were compos'd upon different occasions In his Disputing with Trypho the Jew he was to prove against the Jews that besides God the Father whom the Jews acknowledge to have been the Creator of all things there is another Person namely the Son of God who is also the true God Nor in this doth he at all divide the Substance or Essence but distinguishes betwixt the Persons or Subsistences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These passages are abus'd by Gentilis to establish his Notion of a distinct Essence But that this was never the Mind of Iustin will appear

God per se or of himself the Son only by Communication from the Father just as a King may admit his Eldest Son into a part of the Government The Father is the One Only God but the Son neither the One nor the Only but a different God Here it ought to be observ'd that the Scripture doth sometimes speak of God distinctly i. e. with respect to a certain Person of the Trinity as when St. Iohn says The Word was with God where 't is plain he means the Father So again when Christ upon the Cross cries out My God My God why hast thou for saken me He directed that Invocation to the Father Mat. 27. But St. Iohn expresly says of the Son And the Word was God After the same manner St. Thomas speaking of the Son calls him My God and my Lord. Ioh. 20. in Acts 5. St. Peter saith to Ananias Thou hast not lied unto Men but unto God i. e. to the Holy Ghost At other times the Scriptures speak of God absolutely secundùm essentiam whereby we are to understand the whole Godhead from which none of the Persons is excluded or as it comprehends all three Persons as Ioh. 4. God is a Spirit We are God's Labourers We are God's Husbandry We are God's Building 1. Cor. 3. The wisdom of the World is foolishness with God With what God With the Father only exclusive of the Son No No. The Word God is here as in many other places taken essentially as it belongs to all three Persons But all this signifies nothing with Gentilis who will have the Scripture every where to speak of God distinctly and therefore must of necessity exclude Christ from the Unity of the Divine Essence and Propriety of the Godhead and lastly make him of later Existence than the Father But this is not all his Presumption and Arrogance carries him farther to make two distinct sorts of Martyrdom He thinks it a common ordinary piece of Service to dye for the Glory of the Son and has therefore found out a new and more exalted one namely to suffer for the Glory and Soveraignty of the Father 'T is certainly a grievous Errour to think of Worshipping or Honouring the Father and to neglect the Son yet a greater to exclude the Son from this Honour but the most grievous of all to pretend to Honour the Father by degrading and dishonouring the Son For God is to be Worshipp'd in the manner as he has manifested himself but he has plainly told us Ioh. 5. That he who honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father And Ioh. 12. The Father bears witness from heaven that He is glorified in the Son Wherefore let us keep to this certain perpetual form of honouring the Father I mean by honouring of him in the Son through whom alone he is well pleas'd with us for without the Son no honour can be acceptable unto God the Father Such subtile delusions doth the Devil make use of to overthrow the Glory of Christ under the specious pretext of vindicating the Soveraignty of the Father a Service which God never requir'd either from the Prophets Apostles or any other Holy Men of Old But 't is plain this method of honouring the Father tends to the disgrace and dishonour of Christ and that with a very little more trouble Gentilis may reconcile himself with both Iews and Turks CHAP. XI Containing the Iudgment and Consent of Scripture with respect to this Article THese false Doctrines of Gentilis have ever been condemn'd by the universal consent both of Scripture and the true Church which consent is plainly and in short as follows viz. The Essence of God is but One in which one Essence the Scripture sets forth to us three Hypostases or Subsistences to wit of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost so that we acknowledge neither three Gods nor any division of the Essence of God The Son and the Holy Ghost are so Consubstantial with the Father that they with him are One true eternal infinite God Nor is the appellation or title of the One most high God proper only to the Father exclusive of the Son and Holy Ghost This I say is the Judgment and Consent of the Scripture and the true Church For God is to be Worshipp'd in the same manner that he hath reveal'd himself and so the Church hath always Worshipp'd him but he hath declar'd himself to be One i. e. a Being in Substance or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One subsisting by himself Eternal Wise Good c. but hath manifested himself in three Persons or Hypostases That his Essence is but One will appear from many plain Testimonies as 1 Deut. 6. Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is one God 1 Cor. 8. We know that there is but one God Eph. 4. There is one God Deut. 4. The Lord Jehovah he is God and there is none else besides him Therefore he hath declar'd himself to be but One But that He hath likewise reveal'd himself as subsisting in three Persons is plain from Mark 1. and Mat. 3. where in the Baptism of Christ the Father Son and Holy Ghost are expresly mention'd And so likewise in the Institution of Baptism Mat. 28. Mark 16. Nor can we be put off by that evasion of Gentilis whereby he refers all this only to the Agreement and Consent of the Persons We do not deny that there is such a Consent of Will but we say that besides this there is an Unity of Essence Wherefore this Doctrine doth remain more firm and unshaken than a Rock of Marble namely That God has declar'd himself to be One in Essence subsisting in three Persons so that a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity is to be Worshipped And this is the only true way of Worshipping God And in this sence the Church hath still Interpreted the Scripture and the Apostles Creed I Believe in God who is One that is to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Essence where presently after is added by way of Explication an enumeration of all the Persons that it might appear who that One God Almighty was namely the Father Son and Holy Ghost Consequently Gentilis his Exposition must be false who makes this distinction I believe in God the Father and restrains the Word God to the Father only I say this is a Sophistical Exposition arising from a mistaken distinction Neither have the Nicene nor Athanasian Creeds or any of the Orthodox ever understood it in this sence Wherefore the Son and H. Ghost are the true and one God with God the Father and are so set forth to us in Scripture as often as mention is made of the One true God Iehovah or Lord of Israel Mark 10. Christ saith to the Rich Young Man None is Good save God only where if we admit Gentilis his Opinion to be true the Argument must run thus None is good but one that is God but the Father only is