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
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
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
But afterwards he adds by way of Explication therefore there are not three Fathers nor three Sons nor three Holy Ghosts but one Father and one Son and one Holy Ghost and proves this Trinity from the Institution of Baptism in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost not into any one that had three Names nor yet into three that were made Men but into three of the same Majesty for there is one only who was made Man neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost but only the Son who was not so by estimation or in appearance only but in truth and reality for the Word was made Flesh and dwelt therein So that here St. Ignatius does plainly oppose the Patripassians and such like Hereticks but does not in the least favour or patronize Gentilis his Notion In the very same Epistle disputing against the Patripassians he writes thus And again How doth it appear unto you that Christ was not Born of the Virgin Mary but that it was he the Father who is God above all and Almighty Who then was it that sent him Tell me who was he that rul'd over him Whom did he obey or whose Law did he fulfill You who would have him yield to no one's Command or Power do separate Christ from him that begat him you make the Unbegotten to have been Begotten and him that was without Beginning to have been nailed to the Cross. Which is all said by him in direct opposition to the Patripassians or Sabellians In the same Epistle he brings in Christ disputing against the Devil I know says he and have known One only God whom I do not refuse to Obey but thou hast prov'd an Apostate and Rebel to him for I am not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. contrary to God but I acknowledge his Soveraignty and do not refuse to Worship him whom I know to have been the Author and Lord of my Nativity and only Preserver for I live in and through the Father c. But these are the Words of Christ Incarnate who owns himself in respect of his Humanity to be inferior to the Father For if these Words were to be understood with respect to the Divine Nature how could Christ be said to live propter Patrem or rather Per. seeing he as God is Self-existent or hath life in himself and power to lay it down In his Epistle to the Philadelphians he Exhorts them to Union and draws his Arguments from the Unity of the Flesh and Blood of Christ from the Mystical Union of the Bread and Wine and likewise from the Unity of the Father and the Son His words are these Because there is one Father Unbegotten and one only Begotten Son God the Word and Man and one Holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth also one Gospel one Faith one Baptism and one Church By which words he only urges them to Unity and Concord in the Church Hence he makes this conclusion Therefore it behoov'd them as a chosen People a Royal Priesthood and an Holy Nation to be perfected in Love and Concord To the same purpose is what he says in this Epistle against Ebion who made Christ a meer Man and therefore he shews That Christ was God begotten of the Father which contains no absurdity in it unless violently wrested by a faithless Exposition In his Epistle to Polycarp Here says he is the Race here the Crown wait for Christ the Son of God who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Time and yet Born in Time Thus Damascene and others call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius adds That as God he was Impassible not capable of Suffering but that as Man he was Passible and did suffer for our sakes And what can Gentilis say against this Will he say that Christ as God did suffer And that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as such had properly Flesh and Blood St. Ignatius is of another mind and doth plainly and Orthodoxely distinguish the two Natures under or in the one Person of Christ. The one of which namely the Divine is properly and per se Impassible but the other viz. the Human is properly Passible Gentilis confounds these Proprieties of the two Natures and affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had himself all these Affections Christ indeed has properly Flesh and Bones and Blood being truly and properly Incarnate But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Nature in Christ has no such properly in it self In his Epistle to the Antiochians he says That we ought not to deny Christ under pretence of asserting One God and brings several Testimonies out of Scripture as Deut. 6. Isai. 44. Gen. 1. 17. which do all speak of One God and at the same time express different Persons as when Moses saith The Lord rain'd fire and brimstone from the Lord and yet in other places saith There is but One God which Unity doth not exclude the Son and Holy Ghost whom he on the contrary includes with the Father in the Unity of the Godhead So that a Trinity of Persons doth not at all interfere with the Unity of Essence And at the end of that Epistle he truly distinguishes the Properties of the Persons May he protect and defend you says he who is the Only unbegotten God speaking of the Father through him who was begotten before all Ages i. e. Through the Son whose property it is to be begotten But here Gentilis objects the last clause of this Epistle viz. Valete Deo Christo as if these were different and the Father alone was call'd God but Christ Dominus or Lord so as to be excluded from the communion or fellowship of the only God In his Epistle to the Ephesians he commends them for being one Body and adds this Argument for their Union for says he there is one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of us all But it is not Ignatius's Opinion that the Father was the Only one God no more doth it appear from the following sentence of his Medicus noster est Solus verus Deus Deus ingenitus For if these Epithets were to be understood of the Father only the Son would not then be our Physician But St. Ignatius distinguishes the Persons here only by their Proprieties for a little after he calls Christ our Physician impassible in a passible Body CHAP. XV. Concerning the Iudgment of Tertullian TErtullian without doubt is to be read with a great deal of caution as Gentilis himself confesses and therefore it is the easier for him either to pass by and reject his Authority as he pleases or else to extol and commend it as occasion serves But Tertullian as in many other places so particularly in his Book against Praxeas is very Orthodox where he expresly says of the Persons in the Trinity that numerum sine divisione patiuntur They allow of number without division And afterwards Ubique teneo unam substantiam in tribus cohoerentibus I do always acknowledge one
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