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
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
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
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
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some denied the Incarnation of the Son of God and others impugn'd the Immortality of the Soul a third sort asserted that our Saviour had his Beginning and Existence from the Virgin Mary a fourth allow'd of Polygamy and a fifth sort became Patrons of the Extravagancies of Mahomet These are the sad Effects of those Spirits of Error which Satan by the just Judgment of God sends to delude the old decaying World How great the Distractions and Confusions were that follow'd the Publication of these erroneous Doctrines we may easily gather from the King's Proclamation strictly commanding all such Strangers as were Setters up of New Doctrines immediately to depart the Kingdom by which Edict Gentilis amongst the rest was driven out of Poland Being expell'd Poland his next Journey was into Moravia where he join'd with the Anabaptists From thence he went to Vienna every where as he travell'd dispersing his new invented Notions But still continuing unsettled indeed being able to stay no where he began to think of returning into Savoy believing as he said the Churches there to be the most moderate and less infected of any whatever and besides this he was in hopes to find Gribaldus and the rest of his Accomplices alive from whom he might receive assistance Mr. Calvin whom he always found a most zealous Adversary to all his Novelties being now dead All these Considerations put together made him look upon Savoy at this time as the most secure place of Retirement after so many dangerous Adventures But as the wise Providence of God had ordain'd he should by his own Folly blindly run on upon ruin he came to Gaium where the very same Governour he had formerly affronted was then by an extraordinary Commission continued Governor of that Province To him Gentilis made his Application and begg'd of him the Favour of a Publick Disputation The Governour 's Answer was He should be sure to have Justice done him And thereupon committed him to Prison Thus was this subtle cunning Heretick who had been so insufferably troublesome to so many Churches brought into such straits that He was never afterward able to extricate himself This I thought necessary to be at large premised that the Reader might the better be inform'd how he came to fall into these strange Absurdities and in what Places he dispers'd them what a Disturber he had been of the Peace of the Church how oft he had brought himself by these Practices into very dangerous Circumstances and yet still by some crafty Evasion or other made a shift to escape till at last Divine Justice brought him to condign Punishment CHAP. II. Upon what Account he was brought to Bern. THE Senate of Bern were soon acquainted with his Confinement at Gaium which happen'd on the 2d of Iune 1566. And understanding 1. That he maintain'd and taught the same Errors he once had abjur'd and 2. That thereby he had involv'd himself in a grievous Perjury 3. That he had condemned our Church as still subject to Papal Slavery when at the same time he himself tho' in a Popish Country could publish such a Confession as easily procur'd him Liberty 4. That he had actually endeavour'd to undermine the Doctrine of the Trinity 5. That Poland had been mightily disturbed by him and his Accomplices 6. That the Ring-Leaders of the Faction who formerly did all profess the same Opinion were now altogether by the Ears one an Arian and another a Mahometan c. 7. That their Doctrines were publickly condemn'd throughout Germany their Errors animadverted upon from the Pulpit and their Opinions both by Writing and Disputations in all the Schools were every where rejected and exploded The Senate upon these Accounts ordered him to be brought to Bern. Besides all this he was to give the Governour of Gaium Satisfaction for the Book which he published and dedicated to him Nay more Gentilis himself perceiving the Governour did so highly resent the Affront which he had offered him by the said Dedication made his Appeal to the Senate at Bern whither he was brought the 19th of Iuly CHAP. III. Concerning his Writings and the Heads of his Accusation AT Bern he continued under Confinement for some time without having any thing else done to him At last by command of the Senate the Papers which were found about him were examined The first was a Book wrote with his own hand and dedicated to Sigismund King of Poland consisting of 29 Sheets and 175 Leaves In this Book was contained the whole System of his Doctrine and Principles tho he affirmed he had one much more compleat transcribed by Blandrata In the Epistle Dedicatory which is very long he courts the Favour and begs the Protection of his Majesty both for Himself and his Cause Then repeats the Confessions he made at Geneva before his Recantation the last of which Confessions having been confuted by them of Geneva he subjoins to it by way of Defence his Book of Antidotes which he formerly composed at Lyons Then he falls upon refuting the 13th Chapter of the first Book of Calvin's Institutions and in the same place utterly condemns the Doctrine of the Trinity as it had hitherto been delivered and taught in all Churches whatever Next to that he produces several Propositions out of St. Austin especially out of his fifteen Books of the Trinity which together with their incomparable Author he rejects and exposes with all imaginable Scurrility After that he produces several nice Passages out of the Scripture the Fathers and the Alcoran in defence of his Doctrine And last of all annexes his Annotations upon Athanasius to the end of the Book Secondly There were found some Verses wrote with his own hand being nothing else but a bitter Scurrilous Libel against the Blessed Trinity and its Worshippers Thirdly A Book in Italian with another in Latine of the same strain concerning the Incarnation of Christ. Fourthly A printed Book under a false Name dedicated to the Governour of Gaium with a preliminary Discourse to the Clergy which though it carries Antwerp in the Title Page yet was indeed Printed at Lyons Out of all these Papers were collected several Articles with the Heads of an Indictment to be preferr'd against him which are all reducible to these four particulars First That he dissented from Us and all the Orthodox in the Doctrine of the Trinity Secondly That he had thrown many Scandalous and unheard of Imputations upon our Church and charg'd her with Heresie Thirdly That his Writings contain many impious Blasphemies frequently us'd by him in his Disputes concerning the Trinity and that in his Behaviour he could not abstain from the like impudent Scurrility Fourthly All the Cheats and Impostures were notoriously evident which he commonly us'd in disguising his Opinions in working out his own Deliverance and seducing others to the danger of their Lives But of this in its proper place When these things were urg'd against him namely That First
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ergo he is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of the same Substance with the Father because what is such must be so some of these ways To which we Answer That there is another way or method which they have past over and which alone the Catholick Church hath approved of that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by Immanence or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Communication of his whole Nature to the Son who is therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantial with the Father And to manifest the coeternity the Fathers still call'd it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unspeakable and incomprehensible Which Phrases are certainly most Ancient since we find them in Iustin Martyr an Author immediately after the first Century who frequently condemns and refutes those other expressions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The parting as it were of the Divine Essence of the Father or as their Followers were pleas'd to term it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He condemns those likewise who affirm the Son to have been born either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the former I take to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Germination the latter to signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or efflux tho' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do import the same Thus much I thought necessary to repeat concerning the manner of the Generation of God the Son that it might the better appear what terms and expressions were us'd by the Ancients and withal how boldly and rashly this unsearchable Mystery is treated of by the Men of the present Age. Now as it doth not follow that because he that begets is one and he that is begotten is another therefore the Substance or Essence of the Father is one and the Substance or Essence of the Son is another so neither doth it follow that because he that begets is one and he that is begotten is another therefore the Word which was begotten must have been in time after him that did beget him This being nothing else but quibbling about the ambiguity of a Word as the Arians of old were us'd to do For upon the whole we do not deny but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proper to the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper to the Son provided the Words be taken in their due sence And therefore to avoid all mistakes about them let it be observ'd that First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie one that hath no manner of original at all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes him that is begotten of a Father In this sence the Father alone in himself is said to be unbegotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because there is not any thing from whence he derives his Original and in the same manner the Son may be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as he was begotten by the Father after an ineffable manner and in this sence these terms may very well be applied without any absurdity we may safely call as well Father as the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since neither of them had a Father and the Son only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being begotten of the Father Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. not Created In this sence the Philosophers call the Elements 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they are the first Principles and in the same manner the Creator is distinguish'd from his Creatures he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they are styl'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in this sence 't is plain that Christ cannot be call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he being not made i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is the whole indivisible Divine Nature Lastly If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be oppos'd to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of Time i. e. as that which never had a beginning but was from all Eternity is oppos'd to that which came after and had its beginning in time in this sence 't is plain all the three Persons in the Godhead must be ingenite since none of them had their beginning in time but were before all time And therefore these Propositions The Son is Begotten and only the Father is Unbegotten are not simpliciter or absolutely to be granted since in one respect the Son also is Unbegotten i. e. without Beginning CHAP. X. Whether or no it be proper to the Father to be call'd the One Only God LET us in the next place take into our consideration that Supremacy or Soveraignty of the Father whereof Gentilis so mightily boasts himself to have been an Assertor and sticks not to say that there have been none yet that he knows of who have been put to Death for asserting the Glory and Soveraignty of the Father That the Prophets Apostles and H. Martyrs underwent Persecutions Death and all manner of extremities for the Glory of the Son but that he can find no Martyrs for the Supremacy of the Father Our next Enquiry then must be what this Sovereign Prerogative is which belongs to the Father and cannot by any means appertain to the Son His Answer is this That the Father is the One Only God which the Scripture hath revealed to us I appeal to all good Christians whether this be not the highest Indignity and Blasphemy against the Glory of our Blessed Saviour so to appropriate the Title of God to the Father only as at the same time Sacrilegiously to rob and despoil Christ of his Divinity He tells us that whenever the Scripture speaks of the One God it is to be understood of the Father only and therefore says he Christ cannot be truly or properly God for whatever agrees properly to any thing Uni Soli cannot be accommodated or Communicated to any thing else which if true then according to Gentilis Christ will not only differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Essence or Substance from the Father but likewise cannot at all be styl'd God And therefore thô he had the confidence openly to avow the first Position namely That the Father and the Son were two Species essentially distinct and was grown so hardy in his impudence as without shame or blushing stifly to maintain such a distinction yet perceiving the latter viz. That Christ ought not to be call'd God did contain such open Blasphemy as must necessarily give the greatest Offence and Scandal to all good Christians he was willing to allow that Christ might be call'd God thô not strictly yet by Communication of the Divinity which admirable Salvo of his is still clogg'd with an Errour as absurd namely That Christ is of a later Existence than the Father The Father says he was from all Eternity and without Beginning the Son was Born in time and had a Beginning The Father is
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
Opinions but that thanks be to the good Providence of God the ruin he design'd against others fell upon his own Pate And last of all when he was to have taken his Tryal and to have desended his Doctrine he did by a remarkable piece of Knavery endeavour to obtain the Privilege of a Plaintif and to be heard as such thereby to avoid being Try'd as a Criminal and when that could not be granted him he propos'd his Doctrine so ambiguously and rais'd scruples about matters altogether impertinent to the Controversie as Whether there was one most high God and whether Christ was the Son of God and the like which no body did ever deny But he was still oppos'd in this That Christ was to be excluded from the Unity of the Eternal God and that Three Eternal Spirits distinguish'd by Numerical Essence ought to be allow'd And now let all good Men judge what we ought to think of this Blasphemy and how justly he was punish'd with Death who durst challenge others to Dispute with him for their Lives But it is now high time to rid my hands of this business In short then after that we had us'd all manner of means with him even from the 5th of August to the 9th of September but all to no purpose he still persevering obstinate in his Opinions he was at last condemn'd to Dye by the Honorable Senate And because it may be acceptable to the Reader I shall here rehearse the Sentence of Condemnation which was pronounced against him in the following Words Whereas Valentinus Gentilis a Native of Cosentia in the Kingdom of Naples after eight years preparation to attack the Doctrine of the Trinity did begin openly to teach That there were in the Trinity three distinct Spirits differing from each other in Numerical Essence Amongst which three Spirits he acknowledges the Father only to be that infinite God which we ought to Worship which is plain Blasphemy against the Son and besides this Opinion has broach'd several other dangerous Errors for which he was Apprehended by the Magistrates of Geneva and being fully Convicted of them there made his Recantation and did publickly confess detest and abjure these his wicked Opinions and moreover bound himself by Oath not to depart out of that City without leave of the Senate yet notwithstanding all this violated the Sacred obligations of his Oath by stealing away from thence and by relapsing into the Erroneous Opinions he had once Abjur'd and re-assuming their Defence with greater heat and earnestness both by Disputing and Writing Books in opposition to the plain and express Testimonies of Scripture and hath been guilty of the vilest Scurrility and most horrid Blasphemies against the Son of God and the Glorious Mystery of the Trinity And lastly since his being made Prisoner to this Honorable Senate hath notwithstanding that full and sufficient Instruction which hath been given him still continued obstinate in his perverse and Heretical Opinions This Honourable Senate to prevent disturbances and to root out such pestilent Errors have adjudg'd him to be Beheaded As he was led out to Execution the obstinate Wretch did not cease to Glory in his unruly and pertinacious Stubbornness and expecting praise from it as the Devil's Martyrs use to do never lest off crying out That he died a Martyr for the Glory of the most high God but that we * were all Sabellians and held one God under three Names but that he did acknowledge no God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thô we frequently answer'd him That the things he laid to our Charge were all false and slanderous that all the noise he made about this most high God was only mere Sophistry and that his asserting more Gods than One was downright Impiety yet we could work nothing upon him For he still continued to repeat his old Blasphemies until he saw there was no help for him but that he must be forc'd to lay down his Neck to the Block then he began to faulter and said He should be very willing to agree with us if so be we would but own Christ to be the Son of God when we told him This was what we never deny'd for what otherwise would have become of our Faith Then again did he discover his falshood and treachery as having still been us'd to appropriate the appellation of God to the Person of the Father only and in this horrid Blasphemy he still persever'd the whole Assembly that stood by praying to God that he would change his mind and we continually exhorting him to repentance he had his life taken from him by the just Judgment of God and so his Life and his Blasphemies ended together And thus I have given thee Good Reader a brief and faithful Account of this shatter'd History And must now beg thee to joyn with us in our Prayers to God that he would in his Mercy turn away such scandalous Offences from his Church that he would give his People vigilant and able Ministers who may sincerely love sound Doctrine successfully rebuke Gainsayers and know how to divide the Word of Truth rightly to the Glory of his Name and the good of his Church through Jesus Christ his Only and Coeternal Son Amen THE Reader by comparing the preceding History with what here follows will perceive that the principal Proposition of Valentinus Gentilis is in Sence perfectly the same with those Condemned by the late Oxon Censure as also asserted by Dr. Sherlock At a Meeting of the Vice-Chancellor and the Heads of Colleges and Halls of the University of Oxford on the 25th Day of November in the Year of Our Lord 1695. WHEREAS in a Sermon lately preached before the University of Oxford in the Church of St. Peter in the East on the Feast of S. Simon and Iude last past these Words amongst others were deliver'd and asserted viz. There are Three Infinite distinct Minds and Substances in the Trinity Item That the Three Persons in the Trinity are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits and Three Individual Substances Which gave just cause of Offence and Scandal to many Persons The Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Colleges and Halls at their general Meeting this Day assembled do judge and declare the said Words to be False Impious and Heretical Contrary to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and particularly to the received Doctrine of the Church of England And do therefore strictly forbid all manner of Persons under their Care and Charge to Preach or Publish any such Doctrine for the future By Order of Mr. Vice-Chancellor Ben. Cooper Notarie publick and Register of the University of Oxon. This Sentence it is confessed may and not improbably will be confirmed and sarther enforced by the more Authentick Sentence of the whole University in Convocation In the mean time it has certainly had this good effect That it has Unkennelled the Wolf who quickly shew himself after it So that being hereby