Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	authority_n	church_n	reject_v	2,895	5	9.0049	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

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

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

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