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
〈◊〉 by uttering of a word do make it which yet is not of our own Substance but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of another Nature but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 begotten of God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Substance And to the same purpose he says afterwards that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 begotten of the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. by his Energy and Will is true God but he is not the true God if he is begotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. by dividing or parting of his Substance or Essence since things that are so divided remain not the same they were before division From whence 't is as clear as the Sun that Iustin's Opinion was that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of the very same Substance with the Father that begat him Again we may gather that the Son always was with the Father from these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The Begotten was always with the Father before the Creation of all things and with him did the Father converse from all Eternity Therefore there was always a Father and always a Son and they always were are and will be One God Or else 't would be improper to say the Word was inseparable from the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Light is inseparable from the Sun in the Firmament Therefore when Iustin says the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The Word or that which was Begotten is Numerically distinct from him that did beget him he must be understood with respect to the number of Persons not of Essences for they are indeed two Persons And if we do not understand Iustin with respect to the Persons we shall make him contradict himself who so often urges the Essential Unity of the Father and the Son Nay he would say the same with Arius who made use of this Argument to prove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between the Father and the Son because he that did beget was One and he that was begotten was another Therefore he that was begotten differs from him that did beget and that in Number too but yet in number Personal not Substantial that is to say they differ in Subsistence not in Substance or Essence The same Father in his Apology to the Roman Senate has these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We Worship says he God viz. the Father the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word begotten by the Eternal and Ineffable God and love him who was made Man for our sakes that being made partaker of our Possions and Infirmities he might also heal them In which words he distinguishes between the Persons of the Father and the Son and shews that the Office of Mediator the Mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption of Mankind which is the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belong properly to the Son Then he shews what form of Invocation the Christians did use which was unknown to the Romans namely That they call'd upon or Pray'd to the Father in the Name of the Son by whose Merits they receiv'd Redemption All these passages Gentilis wrests to another sence and utterly rejects all the rest of his Writings but especially his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. His Exposition of the Faith where there is express mention made of a Trinity For citing the place of St. Paul Ephes. 2. In whom you also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit Iustin adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God Christ and the Holy Ghost one Godhead did by their energy or operations dwell in us And presently after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. There is one Name deliver'd down unto us which jointly agrees to the Father Son and Holy Ghost And again he expresly mentions and proves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Sameness or Identity of Essence Again In the Trinity says he we understand an Unity and in the Unity we acknowledge a Trinity And again We have deliver'd to you the Doctrine of one Godhead in three perfect Subsistences c. Now these and the like passages being so very plain that it was impossible to elude their force Gentilis has chosen rather to deny this whole Treatise viz. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than change his Judgment And therefore 't will be needless to produce any more Quotations since I think it fully appears from what we have said what was the Judgment of Iustin Martyr the Philosopher in this particular CHAP. XIV Containing the Iudgment of St. Ignatius ST Ignatius was Contemporary with Polycarp and Disciple to St. Iohn asis evident from Eusebius in his Chronicon St. Ierom says that he wrote several Epistles and reckons some of them Yet it is certain that several Spurious Pieces have been attributed to him However I shall not now Dispute their Authority but supposing with Gentilis that they are all Genuine let us see how far they do countenance his Opinion Gentilis endeavours to prove from these Epistles that the Son is in Essence distinct from the Father or to use his own expression that they are two Eternal Spirits distinct in Numerical Essence We on the contrary affirm That St. Ignatius never so much as Dream'd of any such thing but taught that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word was one and the same God with the Father yet so that they are in themselves personally distinct In his Epistle to the Magnesians he says that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not a Pronounced but a Substantial Word And for what he says a little after that he is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a begotten Substance thô it must be confess'd that this is an harsh expression yet on the contrary it plainly appears that he there meant nothing else by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that which doth really subsist i. e. an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Subsistent Being to which he opposes a vocal sound which presently vanishes In the same Epistle he says of the Son that he declar'd the One and Only true God to be his Father and speaking of the Doctrine of our Lord that he reveal'd to the World the true God his Father But what 's all this to a distinction of Essence In his Epistle to the Tarsenses he says that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not he who is God and Father over all but his Son which amounts to no more than this That the Son was not the Father which was the Heresie of the Patripassians who did thus confound the Persons In his Epistle to the Philippians he cites this place out of the 1 Cor 8. There is but one God Father of all things and presently after There is but one God and Father not two or three one who is and there is no other besides him the only true God
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
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
bereaved of all his Shifts Meanings and Subterfuges and Sheeps Cloathing besides the University has him now in full Chase and 't is hoped will not give the Chase over till it has run him down Some of the grosser Errata of the Press are thus to be Corrected s for f frequently PAg. 1. l. 5. for produee r. produce p. 8. l. 19. for I am r. I AM. p. 18. in the Margent for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men l. 26. for Pennancae r. penance p. 44. l. 6. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 48. l. 1. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A. p. 54. l. 22. for personies subsistenies r. persones subsistentes p. 70. l. 29. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 85. l. 13 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with one Accent p. 90. l. 10. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 91. l. 22. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 94. l. 5. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 11. for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. and then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 97. l. 8. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * See Dr. Sherlock's Examination of the Oxford Censure p. 46. I am not afraid says he to commend Genebrard and Petavius before Calvin and his Followers who denied the Nicene Faith of God of God See pag. 6. of his Preface against Tritheism Charged c. Note That this book of Genebrard has not the Numeral Mark upon every Page but only upon every Leaf of it * Unus ille Spiritus Essentialiter est Tres Spiritus personaliter Geneb contra Schegkium de Trinitate fol. 53. p. 2. And again Tres sunt aeterni Spiritus quorum unusquisque per se Deus est fol. 54. p. 1. * Tres Personas says Geneva to Schegkins Uni essentiae affigis ut Synagogis Gallicis Germanicis placeas quos jam Omnes Sabellians Scelere Contaminatas atque Conspurcatas docui Geneb fol. 131. And again Illud est quod Ecclesiam à Te vestrisque Synagogis separat quas omnes Arrtano vel Sabelliano Scelere irretitas meridie ipso clarius demonstravi clarissie demonstrabo in Opere quod contra istum Apostatam Zanchium parturio fol. 144. p. 2. ☞ * When the Nominal Trinitarians have call'd till they are hoarse weary and asham'd to Universities and Bishops to espouse their Cause and Censure the real Trinitarians c. All their Appeals notwithstanding it will not be long e're they are told by their-Superiors in the Church That it is expedient for them to be quiet lest themselves be Censured as Sabellians Answer to Dr. Bull p. 68. col 1. ☞ ☜ ☞ See Dr. Sherl taking the same Course since as appears from these Words The Truth is That which has confounded this Mystery viz. of the Trinity has been the vain endeavour to reduce it to Terms of Art such as Nature Essence Substance Subsistence Hypostasis and the like Vind. Trin. p. 138. l. the last and page 139. l. the first So that Dr. Sherl may find sevaral 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Antienter than himself ☞ So says Philoponus Joachim and Dr. Sherlock with the rest of the Tritheistick Tribe Calvin says that he had most perfidiously for sworn himself Thrice But Tritheists must be allowed to have more skill in dealing with an Oath than other Men. See Calvin's Narrative of Gentilis in his Opuscula p. 764. St. Hilary * Particularly by Genebrardus See the account given of him by Calvin in his Opuscula As Dr. Sherlock and his Tritheistical Followers now do in England Andtherefore not preached from thence before their Universities nor written against by One only amongst them and no more * Much like Dr. Sherlock's Modest Examination c. So does Dr. Sherlock * And those I suppose passed in their respective Convocations ☞ ☜ ☜ The fourth and sixth are Dr. Sherlock's Doctrine expresly * Perhaps he meant Gypsie-Cant and meer Gibberish * So that we see Three Eternal Spirits are but an old Story and Vented long before the Year 1690. * Dr. Sherlock defends the very same * He might have added in Mutual Consciousness too Let Dr. Sherl and his Party give a satisfactory Answer to this if they can * Or that the Godhead Subsists by it self out of the Persons but actually and wholly in the Persons and not otherwise ☜ * Or a Trinity which is God * What not explained by Self-Consciousness and Mutual Consciousness which we are told makes a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity a plain easie and Intelligible Notion and Solves all difficulties about it Sh. Vin Trin. * Since condemned and equally exploded by Dr. Sherl Theod l. 1. c. 6. ☜ Augustin lib. 15. de Trin. cap. 17. Vide Erasmi Observat. * Which may be Communicated indeed but yet not Made nor Created according to this latter sence of the Word * Viz. in all the Senses of the Word ☞ * Nor Multiplication * And of Mutual Consciousness too Isaiah 44. * Iust no doubt as his Successor Dr. Sherlock intends to do in the Account he has promised us out of the Fathers of his Tritheistick Hypothesis of 3 distinct Infinite Minds in the Blessed Trinity * The true Tritheistical Dialect * And at this day we have such another amongst us ☞ ☞ Pag. 62. P. 30. P. 6. P. 7. * Did the Father beget a Mode and call it his Son says Dr. Sh. Vin. Trin. p. 84. * Dr Sherlock perfectly agrees with him in this Assertion * Dr. Sherlock 's constant Charge upon such as deny Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits in the Trinity * Viz. Such as Genebrard a Sorbon Doctor who to his Eternal Infamy both defended Gentilis and asserted Three distinct Eternal Spirits in the Trinity See his Answer to Skegkius de Trinitate fol. 53. p. 2. * So that Gentilis suffered just according to his own Conditions ☜ The Sentence of Condemnation passed upon Gentilis * Viz. Three distinct Eternal Spirits For so it is in the 6th Proposition set down in the 5th Chapter and in the 6th also where he says the Father Son and H. Gh. Tres sunt aeterni Spiritus qui unus esse non possunt * Valentinus Gentilis a great Abjurer * This Genebrard very learnedly calls Crematus est fol. 54. And Ultricibus flammis Traditus fol. 52. Dr. Sherlock's Language all along * Our Answer to him is and ought to be the same tho' God be thank'd the Tongue of a Tritheist be it never so false is no slander * How much better does it fare with Tritheism in England Which tho' it lost its Head at Bern lifts up its Head as high as Pauls here
A short HISTORY OF Valentinus Gentilis THE Tritheist Tryed Condemned and put to Death by the Protestant Reformed City and Church of Bern in Switzerland for Asserting the Three Divine Persons of the Trinity to be Three Distinct Eternal Spirits c. Wrote in Latin by Benedictus Aretius a Divine of that Church and now Translated into English for the use of Dr. Sherlock Humbly Tendred to the Consideration of the Arch-bishops and Bishops of this Church and Kingdom London Printed and Sold by E. Whitlock near Stationers-Hall 1696. TO THE Most Reverend the Archbishops and the Right Reverend the Bishops of the Church of England My Lords I Here present your Lordships with a short Account of the Proceedings of an Eminent Protestant Reformed Church and State against a Noted Tritheist for asserting Three Eternal Spirits in the Blessed Trinity induced thereto by the late fatal Growth of Tritheism in our Church first vented and asserted in the same and yet higher Terms by Dr. Sherlock in his pretended Vindication of the Doctrine of the Ever Blessed Trinity in the Year 1690. And since that by one J. B. Minister of Folkstone in Kent and styling himself A Presbyter of the Church of England to the extream Disgrace of it in a Book written in Defence of the said Dr. Sherlock and his Tritheistick Notions upon the same Article in the Year 1695. and since that also openly preached in the very Face of the whole University of Oxon by one Mr. Joseph Bingham then a Fellow of University-Colledge there on the 28th of October in 1695. And lastly maintained and with great and even foaming Vehemence preached up in one of the most Eminent Cathedrals in England by one of the Prebendaries of the same first on the 30th Nov. 95. and since that on the 12th of January 9. Whose Name together with the Heterodoxyes then and there delivered by him are ready to be produc'd as there shall be occasion So that your Lordships can need nothing further either to alarm or convince you That the Enemy has been sowing his Tares amongst us while you see them so plentifully coming up even under your Eyes As for Dr. Sherlock he has over and over declared and lately again renewed the same Declaration viz. That the Three Divine Persons are Three distinct Infinite Eternal Minds or Spirits and that it is Heresie and Nonsence to judge otherwise For He it seems may take upon him to declare Heresie without a Reprimand And as for Presbyter I. B. of Folkstone he asserts the very same in Print And not only so but likewise to the flagrant Scandal of our Church * professedly owns and prefers Genebrard 's Tritheistick Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity as better and more Orthodox than that of Calvin and his Followers whom he charges with denying the Nicene Faith as to that part of it God of God which yet Bellarmine himself as much as he hated Calvin vindicates him from in his 2d Book de Christo and 19. Chap. To whom we may further add Beza Brentius and Zanchius with several other Eminent Divines of the Reformation All of them with the utmost Calumny reviled and condemned by this Genebrard while on the other side he positively vouches the horrid Opinions of Gentilis for sound and Catholick And besides all this at one stroke charges all the Reformed Churches both of France and Germany sometimes with Sabellianism and sometimes with Arianism as the Reader will perceive by the Quotations here tendred him on the side This Genebrard I say is the Person followed and defended by Dr. Sherlock's Defender J. B. and that as to his Doctrine of the Trinity as may be more particularly and fully declared in another place But in the mean time how these Encomium's bestowed by a Presbyter of the Church of England upon such a Furious Tritheistick Papist in so foul a manner traducing the Doctrine of most of the Protestant Divines and Churchis about the blessed Trinity will sound in the ears of the Reformed Churches abroad whom we have been so long professing to Court is left to the Bishops of this Reformed Church to judge For some indeed have shewn themselves very zealous to quit a great part of our Ecclesiastical Constitution in order to our Union with those Churches beyond Sea Tho I confess I could never yet hear That those Churches alledged the Rites and Ceremonies of our Church as any Bar to their Communion with it But howsoever they do or may stand affected to us I dare undertake that our quitting all the Ceremonies hitherto enjoyned and received amongst us as Ancient Decent and Inoffensive as they certainly are will not be half so powerful to draw them to us as the Asserting Three Distinct Infinite Eternal Minds or Spirits in the Blessed Trinity or countenancing those who assert them will be effectual to make them abhor loath and fly from our Communion And when they are once gotten to such a distance from us I fear we shall hardly get them back again but by quitting our Church-Livings and Preferments to them and then we shall be throughly Reformed indeed That Tritheism therefore is in a thriving condition amongst us cannot be denied nor so much as questioned And the Causes of it are manifestly these two First The great and advantagious Station held by that Person in the Church who first broached it here And Secondly The connivence which has ever since attended him in the Assertion of it The first of which has created him several Dependencies amongst some poor empty Retainers acted by Hope and Hunger as Hunger and Emptiness generally go together who to serve their Interest by his Favour easily turn Proselytes to his Opinions it being not Imaginable that they should open their Mouths so wide for him but to have them fill'd by him But such mischiefs must always be expected from Heterodoxy in High Place which is never so formidable for what it holds as for what it has to give For this still made the Pope an Over-match for a Council and may at any time give an overgrown Heretick the vantage ground of Truth Tho miserable no doubt must the state of that Church needs be where men shall wear her Favours so much to the prejudice of her Faith As for the other Reason of the Fatal spreading of this Poyson viz. The Connivence and Encouragement attending the Person who first vented it I shall not stick to affirm That he who asserts any thing contrary to the Received Doctrine of the Church how much soever he may be favoured or abetted dignified or distinguished is a scandal to the Gown he wears and an Insufferable Reproach to the Church he wears it in I very well know That the judicial Proceedings of the Church and Senate of Bern against that wretehed Thitheist Gentilis are no rule for us to proceed by who have Laws of our own which allow of no such severity as I am far from desiring that they should
Nevertheless tho they are not a rule for us to proceed by they may very well be a Rule for us to judg by so far at least as to Conclude That what upon the Maturest deliberation was accounted Capital in one Reformed Church and that a very great one too cannot without scandal continue Uncensured and Unrebuked in Another which yet this Detestable Tritheism has done for several years and not only so but the Publisher and Assertor of it has been hitherto so far from any thing like Censure or Rebuke that he has been Advanced Countenanced and Abetted to the utmost And some talk of no less matters than his being mounted shortly to the Episcopal Chair and Dignity tho some again think that it would be a very odd sight in a Christian Church to see a Tritheist in a Bishoprick and holding his Tritheism with it in Commendam for let this happen when it will I dare undertake that the Promotion of the man will be the Degradation of the Office However this is certain That the wounds which this man has given this poor Church are deep and dangerous and have been kept Bleeding so long that now they begin to Fester and threaten some further mischief and it is too late to dally any longer with the Cure For my Lords your Lordships cannot but know that Tritheism is worse and more Reproachful to Christianity not only than Sabellianism but even than Socinianism it self as being contrary to all Natural as well as Revealed Religion by destroying the grand leading and fundamental Article of Both viz. The Unity of the Godhead which Socinianism how much soever it impugns and denies the Revealed Article of three distinct Persons in the Godhead does not encroach upon And yet in a further degree is it worse than Arianism for tho Arianism denies the Essential Deity of the Son making him only a Glorious Deified Creature or the First-born of the Creation yet it still preserves the Unity of the Divine Essence entire and unmultiplied which the Assertion of Three distinct Infinite Eternal Minds or Spirits unavoidably multiplies and by consequence destroys Whereas the Unity of the Godhead is the very Foundation and Corner Stone of all True Religion and as Essential an Article of the Christian Faith as that of a Trinity of Persons it self Both of them together making up that great Depositum which God has committed to us to keep inviolably and to defend resolutely and in a word to save as well as to be saved by And therefore my Lords I shall recommend this important matter to your Lordships much in those words of Mordecai to Esther Who knows but that you are come to such high Place Power and Dignity in our Church for such a Time as This And that God is now Trying whether you will make good the Zeal you have so often professed for our Religion heretofore by doing something signal great and worthy of those Professions now In a word I look upon your Lordships as Persons of that Sincerity and Clearness of Principle that if you believed this Doctrine of Three Distinct Infinite Eternal Minds Spirits and Substances in the ever Blessed Trinity to be True you would boldly and openly Profess it which since you do not why should not so Scandalous a Corruption of our Faith receive a Check by some mark of your Lordships Disapprobation Hitherto I am sure there has been a Profound Silence in this matter and I heartily wish the Enemies of our Religion may not pass that nicking Reflexion upon it Tacent Satis Laudant For in good earnest it is very hard that Heresy should over-run a Church only because we must not call it Heresie But this is not the worst of our Case neither For a certain Socinian Writer by a Spirit of Prophecy coming upon him from some above positively tells the Nominal Trinitarians as he calls those who assert a Trinity of Divine Persons in opposition to that of Three distinct Infinite Minds Spirits or Substances that it will not be long before they be told by their Superiors in the Church That it will concern them to be Quiet that is I suppose to Write against Dr. Sherlock and his Tribe no more lest they themselves be censured as Sabellians Now this upon my word is very home and sounds dreadfully indeed and having been written about the middle of August last le ts us into a farther Understanding of the late Letter sent to the Vice-chancellor of Oxon and shews That there were Reprimands preparing for us long before that scandalous Sermon was Preached there and consequently before the Oxford Censure could be thought of And now if this be really so is not our Church think we in a blessed Condition viz. That first the Assertors of its received Doctrine are to be censured next That They are to be Censured by their Superiors in and of the same Church And thirdly That they are to be Censured as Sabellian Hereticks And lastly That the Socinians must be made privy to this Design while our Clergy knows nothing of it What a dismal Aspect I say must all this needs have upon our Church and Clergy But as for the Charge of Sabellianism which we are here threatned with I hope it will be proved against us before we are Censured for it and then we desire no greater security against such a Censure For does not Sabellius hold only one single Subsistence in the Godhead and no more And can those then be Sabellians who hold three distinct Subsistences in the Same And does not Sabellius allow only a Trinity of Names as of Father Son and Holy Ghost and that Founded in a Trinity of Offices as that the Father is the Creator of all things the Son the Redeemer of Mankind and the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier of the Church The Assumption of which Names and Offices having been a free effect of God's will might by Consequence had God so pleased never have been at all since nothing in the Divine Nature could make it necessary But what is this to us who maintain three such Subsistences in the Divine Nature as are Eternal Necessary and Inseparable even by the Divine Power it self both from the said Nature and from one another I protest I cannot tell whether there be more Malice or Ignorance in such a Charge as often as some have the face to make it But such is the Nature of Malice that while it opens mens Mouths it commonly shuts their Eyes In the mean time I would have this pert medling Socinian know That the Assertors of a Trinity of Persons against Three Distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits are neither grown so hoarse with Appealing to Universities and Bishops nor yet so weary and ashamed of so doing but that in case such a censure should pass upon them from those Superiors he speaks of they would have the Courage to appeal still not indeed to them but from them and that to the whole Nation and to all the
Protestant Churches and Universities in Christendom But if what this Socinian has so boldly and positively said and Printed of them be false as for their own sakes I trust it is I hope these Superiors will consider what may be the consequence of sitting down tamely under such a Slander However let matters go as they will The Assertion of Three Divine Persons in contradiction to Three Distinct Infinite Eternal Minds Spirits or Substances in the ever blessed Trinity is certainly the Cause of God and he will not desert it though others should The University of Oxford has appear'd very considerably in this matter already and would have appeared yet further and done much more had she not been hindred from doing what she was ready and desirous to do there being nothing which that Great and Learned Body so ardently wished and pressed for as a Liberty to have declared it self Authoritatively against those scandalous Propositions in full Convocation But if in the mean time there is any Failure or Defect as some contend there is in the late Censure so worthily passed upon the forementioned Propositions by that Venerable meeting of the Vice-Chancellor the Bp. of the Diocess and other Heads of Colleges and Halls there it is to be hoped that your Lordships to whom the Care of our Religion more immediately and peculiarly belongs will vouchsafe to supply the said Defect by the greater Authority of your Episcopal Censure For if so gross a Piece of Paganism as that which holds Three Distinct Infinite Eternal Minds or Spirits in the Godhead having been first vented by one in so considerable a Place and Dignity in our Church and to this very Day persisted in and moreover defended to his poor Utmost by one calling himself a Presbyter of the Church of England and after that preached publickly before one of our Universities and lastly maintained from the Pulpit in one of our greatest Cathedrals Twice shall continue Uncensured and Uncontrouled by the Governours of our Church a◠〈◊〉 upon these Terms will be apt to look 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Authority as serving 〈◊〉 else but to upbraid the Non-Exâ—… 〈◊〉 it is further referred to your Lordships seriously to consider how Foreign Churches which will certainly hear of it will Resent it And how Reproachfully it will Reflect upon our Own which I account a Church as well Reform'd as the best of them and that without the help of a Further Reformation May God direct and assist your Lordships Counsels and Proceedings in so near and Arduous a Concern of our Opposed Religion For the Eyes of the World are upon you and their Ears open to hear what you will do And as all who wish your Lordships and the Church well hope that you will acquit your selves in so weighty an Affair sutably to your High Character and Post in the Church so their next satisfaction will be That your Lordships have had this matter humbly fairly and Dutifully laid before you whether your Lordships shall think fit to do anything in it or no. So begging your Lordshipp's Paternal Blessing I am My Lords Your Lordshipp's most Humble and Obedient Servant N. N. ADVERTISEMENT Concerning the Publication of the following History I Have here presented the Reader with this History just as I find it published by Aretius though I am not ignorant that several Parts and Passages of it will seem foreign to the purpose I produee it for However I thought it more Adviseable to lay it before the Reader intire and unaltered as the likeliest way to render it the less liable to Exception which any Abbreviatures or Decurtations might probably subject it to especially with some sort of Readers who will be but too ready to take occasion to Cavil where the least pretence or shadow for it can be laid hold of I am not here concerned to make an exact Parallel between the Heresie of Valentinus Gentilis and the Opinion of Dr. Sherlock as to all the Particularities and Circumstantials of each it being enough for my purpose that they agree and are the same as to the main of both viz. The Assertion of Three Eternal Spirits in the Blessed Trinity But my chief Design is to shew the Noble Concern of a Protestant City and Senate in Vindicating so High an Article as that of the Trinity against this Heretical Tritheistical Innovation upon it And accordingly I have given the Reader not the entire History only but also the Epistle prefixed to it and Dedicatory of it to the Lords of the Senate that so it may appear to all That it was not written and Published at the sole Will and Pleasure of a private Man but by the Order and Authority of the Governors of the Place thereby Owning and Avowing their Proceedings against this Heretick to the whole World And I cannot but in Honour to them wish that all Christian Governours and Governments would shew the same Magnanimous Zeal and Courage in the Defence of their Faith though I confess I wish not that they should do the same way A Brief ACCOUNT OF Valentinus Gentilis CONTAINING Some Passages of his Life and Just Execution Together with An Orthodox Defence of the Article of the Holy Trinity against his Blasphemies TO THE Most Honourable and Noble Lords Nicholas à Diessbach Nicholas a Graffenried Treasurer And Petermannus ab Erlach Most Worthy Senators of the Republick of BERN and his Most Honoured Lords and Patrons Health through Iesus Christ. TO Discourse modestly of God and Matters relating to him is no small part of Religion For since the Nature of God is incomprehensible his Power infinite and his Name inexpressible no thought can comprehend his infinite Power no Eye approach so glorious a Light no Tongue can declare it And for this reason the more sound Philosophers have been very sparing in their Discourses upon this Subject Plato is commended for his Modesty in this case who tho' he is not afraid to stile God The Creator of the World a Lover of Mankind and the provident Curator of all things Forasmuch as he is a most Wise Being and doth not slight and despise the Work of his own Wisdom yet notwithstanding all this confesseth That the Eyes of Men are too weak to see through Matters of Divinity Aristotle was satisfied with placing some one first Mover in the Heavens But he dares not say one word about the Nature of God Others thought fit wholly to omit this Question The Judgment of Simonides on the Case is commonly known who being ask't by Hiero about the Nature of God prolong'd the time a good while by requesting more Days for Deliberation and at last return'd this Answer The more I think on 't the less I understand of it After such a manner did the Excellency of this Divine Nature exercise and tire the liveliest Wits without the Church that they were at last forc'd to acknowledge the inscrutability of the Majesty thereof And on the other side they perceiv'd such a blindness and
time he and his Friends became so great Proficients in it as boldly to assert That the Reform'd Churches were still agreed with the Papists in that abominable and grievous Error of subscribing to the Article of the Trinity For by that Doctrine of theirs they as well as the Papists did not defend a Trinity but rather a Quaternity That a true Trinity ought to consist of Three Eternal distinct Spirits differing from each other essentially rather than personally This was what these Innovators did then unanimously profess but falling afterwards into different Factions they ran into several contradictory and extravagant Opinions And being call'd to account for their Doctrines at Geneva they all made a shift some way or other to get off by what particular means I shall not now concern my self my chief design being to give a brief account of Gentilis only Who though he had undertaken to defend the same Opinions with Blandrata Gribaldus and Alciatus yet shortly after made his Recantation and by an exemplary Pennance publickly abjur'd his Novel Doctrines This happen'd in the Year 1558 to testifie the truth of which there is extant a Narrative of the whole Proceedings But having thus solemnly renounc'd his own Opinions more for fear of Death than out of any real sense of their Impiety and still retaining a strong desire of defending them it was not long e're despising the sacred Obligations of his Oath and committing the most horrid Perjury he fled from Geneva Near which place was the Town of Fargiae where M. Gribaldus lived with whom he associated himself And in the same place was Alciatus and with him a certain Schoolmaster and Tutor to Gribaldus's Children amongst whom after the coming of Gentilis there were frequent Conferences and Disputes about the same Controversies by all which Gentilis was mightily confirm'd in his Notions And so leaving them he went to Lyons where he was furnish'd with plenty of Books by one Baptista Lucensis and there made Collections out of the Fathers in order to confirm and establish his new Opinions And seeing both the Latin and Greek Fathers were universally quoted by the Orthodox he made it his business to consult the most ancient of them But the Collections he made were only some miserable imperfect broken Quotations out of Ignatius's Epistles Iustin Martyr and Tertullian nay so impudent was he as to ransack the Alcoran for Authorities and quote even Mahomet himself And then he very roundly condemn'd and exploded all the rest of the Fathers such as St. Austin St. Ierome St. Basil Chrysostome Damascene and whoever else had plainly express'd their Thoughts concerning the Trinity in a different way from him Nay he wholly rejected some Books in Iustin Martyr and Tertullian and question'd the Authority of others And because so grand an Affair could not be successfully manag'd without Writing he set himself upon that also and in a short time wrote a Book entituled his Antidotes wherein he endeavour'd to vindicate himself against his Adversaries of Geneva and to answer the Objections which the Ministers of the Italian Congregation there had produc'd against his Opinions The Book which he made was not publish'd but was found lying by him in MSS. Being now furnish'd with new Arguments and Reasons he went to Grenoble where his dear Friend Gribaldus was then publick Professor And besides all this he was now fall'n into a Distemper which forc'd the needy Gentleman to seek out for a place where he might be kindly receiv'd and find a comfortable retirement and subsistence during his Sickness Whilst he was under Cure his Principles began to be known abroad upon which account he was commanded by the Magistrates to exhibit a Confession of his Faith which he so cunningly contrived by abusing the Reform'd Churches and in particular Mr. Calvin that it was admitted for Orthodox by the Papists But he said nothing at all to the purpose as to the main point and business of the Controversie From thence he went to Chambrey a Neighbouring Town but being disturb'd in this place also he return'd to Fargiae By this time his Doctrines began to make a noise in the World For Geneva being not far off was able to give an ample Testimony of the whole Proceedings And he himself was well enough known by his rambling about at Lyons Chambrey Grenoble and in Dauphiny The Town of Fargiae is in the Presecture of Gaium and belongs to the Illustrious Lords of Bern. The Governour of which place being advertis'd of the arrival of this Pestilent Fellow order'd his Officers to apprehend him and bring him to Gaium where he was put into Custody but after some time was releas'd out of Prison tho' still bound to his good Behaviour But notwithstanding all this he still continued industriously to propagate his Errors denying that his Opinions did in any wise interfere with the publick Peace And here he play'd a fresh Prank For when the Governour had demanded of him a Confession with design to send it to Bern there to be examin'd by the Clergy what did Gentilis do but sent it to the Press pretending the Governour 's Command for so doing To this Confession he added some Propositions with many seurrilous Reflections upon St. Athanasius Nor was this enough but he must likewise abuse the Name and Authority of the Governour by Dedicating his Book to him which so highly incens'd the Governour that could he have laid hold of the Offender he would immediately have thrown him into Gaol again Hence he went back to Lyons where the Provost of the City put him into Prison for the very same Doctrine and kept him there almost two Months but at last he gain'd his Liberty by much such another Trick as before For he so soften'd his Book of Antidotes and Confession that they rather seem'd Libels against Mr. Calvin than Treatises against the Trinity and so he got free The next Summer he went into Poland being invited thither by Blandrata and Alciatus who look'd upon him as a fit Instrument to raise Innovations in the Churches of Poland Here he stay'd for above two Years to the great Mischief both of Church and State And had not Divine Providence confounded the Designs of these Men by setting them at variance amongst themselves 't is probable the Wounds they had given Religion might have proved more dangerous to the Church For Blandrata and Gentilis turn'd Arians and Alciatus a Mahometan and others as their wild Fancies led them embrac'd more monstrous and extravagant Opinions And thus having disturb'd the Peace of the Church they now began to quarrel amongst themselves And that this is true the present unhappy state of Poland does sufficiently testifie The Followers of Blandrata were arriv'd to such a pitch as to avow and openly defend the Doctrine of Arius They condemn'd the Council of Nice and the Creed made by it ridicul'd and exploded the Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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