Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	proper_a	sense_n	signification_n	2,806	5	9.7840	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25775	A short history of Valentinus Gentilis, the tritheist tryed, condemned, and put to death by the Protestant reformed city and church of Bern in Switzerland, for asserting the three divine persons of the Trinity, to be [three distinct, eternal spirits, &c.] / wrote in Latin, by Benedictus Aretius, a divine of that church, and now translated into English for the use of Dr. Sherlock ...; Valentini Gentilis justo capitis supplicio affecti brevis historia. English	Aretius, Benedictus, d. 1574.; South, Robert, 1634-1716.	1696 (1696)	Wing A3629; ESTC R6675	62,571	156

to the three Persons contending that we ought to say The Father Son and Holy Ghost are Unum but they are by no means Unus or one God Therefore when we say And yet not Three Eternals but one Eternal Gentilis will have this to be a grand mistake for that they are Three Eternal Spirits which cannot be One or Unus Thus I have briefly and with what plainness I could collected his Tenets out of his own Writings which likewise he has frequently own'd and endeavour'd to defend in common Discourse and Conversation In short the Sum of what he asserted is briefly this That the Father is one God the Son another God and the Holy Ghost a third God That they are all One Unum yet not unus Deus one God but three Subordinate Spirits that the Father only is properly to be call'd The One God who alone is of himself and strictly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here it is to be observ'd That when we say One God that Expression may be understood two ways First One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Essence Secondly One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Name only The first Acceptation he utterly rejects or else he could never defend Three distinct intelligent Substances The latter he allows of and recommends by a very pompous Exposition as that these Three Spirits are One in Consent in Will in Nature in Power in Dominion in Operations c. and to this sense he wrests whatever is said in Scripture concerning the Unity of the Godhead But the Universal Consent of the Catholick Church teaches us quite otherwise namely That God is One in Essence which one Essence subsists in three Persons In this sence hath the Church hitherto expounded the Apostles Creed I Believe in God But what God do you believe in Why in the Father Son and Holy Ghost Thus the Nicene Creed added the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Substance to express the Identity of Substance in opposition to the Blasphemies of Arius And the Creed of Athanasius in express terms tells us We must confess the Father Son and Holy Ghost not to be Three Gods but One God neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance And in this Trinity saith he none is afore or after other none greater or less than another but the whole Three Persons are coeternal and coequal so that in all things a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped By denying of this Gentilis hath been the occasion of introducing several dangerous and insufferable Errours into the Church CHAP. VII Of those Words Trinitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what they do properly signifie NOW because he quarrels with the word Trinity as us'd by us and every where confounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 using promiscuously the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 substantia essentia persona and hypostasis we will therefore briefly explain their proper significations For there is not an Arranter Piece of Sophistry than to use Words in a different sence from that wherein they have usually been received and taken 'T is true indeed we ought not to be over Nice in our Expressions and wrangle about Words when we are agreed as to the thing but what madness is it to Coin new Terms and cry down the old without any reason or necessity It is in my Opinion equally adviseable to retain the Language as well as to imitate the Manners of our wise Forefathers But to come to the business The Word Trinity in this Question does not signifie an Abstracted Number as when we say in Latin ternio quaternio in English three or four Units but it denotes an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something really existing thence it is that the Trinity was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conformably to which the Greek Fathers Gregory Nazianzen St. Basil Damascen and also the Latins do generally speak of the Trinity And therefore Gentilis is much in the wrong when he concludes because the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and the Trinity likewise God therefore there are four Persons of the Godhead and whoever asserts this must likewise assert a Quaternity not a Trinity We do absolutely deny the consequence For no body says that the Trinity as distinct from and without the Persons of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is God For the very being of the Trinity and of the Godhead too is in these three Persons and without them there can be neither Godhead nor Essence of the Godhead But the true consequence had been this the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and these three are One therefore there is in the Godhead a Trinity of Persons nor by asserting of this do we in any wise set up a new God or Idol But to proceed the Word Trinity was not without very good reason brought into the Church For the Bishops assembled with Athanasius at Alexandria as we are told by Sozomen l. 6. c. 20. Hist. trip to defend and establish the Decree of the Nicene Council concerning the consubstantiality of the Father Son and H. Ghost in opposition to the turbulent Arians sixt upon the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Trinity thereby intending to signifie the three Persons of the same Substance not dividing the Substance nor confounding the Persons And ever since the Word has been made use of by all Orthodox Councils as well as by the Greek and Latin Fathers Nay the Scripture it self speaks to the very same purpose Iohn 1. cap. 5. There are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father Son and Holy Ghost and these Three are One. And so likewise in the Baptism of Christ Mark 1. Mat. 3. and in the Institution of Baptism Mat. 28. there is plain mention made of three Persons 'T is therefore an impudent and a frontless rash Censure to call the Trinity a meer Human Invention utterly unknown to the Orthodox Creeds The Nicene Alexandrian and Ephesine Creeds are all confessedly Orthodox and yet all make use of the Word Trinity But here he replies they never acknowledg'd the Trinity to be a God I must profess I can't tell what he would be at with his Deus Trinitas If by it he understands a fourth Person it is one of his own making and we may justly explode both him and his fancy and he well deserves the Name of Impious Libertine that in a matter of so great importance dares fly to these wicked Cavils but if by Deus Trinitas he understands Deus Trinus or a Trinity in the Godhead 't is plain he has asserted a notorious falshood since we have already prov'd both Councils and Fathers to have us'd the Word Trinity in this Sence and that a Trinity in the Godhead was no Novelty to them Thus our Crafty Adversary would sain father upon us the Notion of a Deus Trinitas distinct from or without the Father Son and

Holy Ghost But 't is all perfect Calumny and God forbid the Church of Christ should be ever guilty of such a Blasphemous Position I think it needless to dwell any longer upon the Explication of the Word Trinitas since we have evidently demonstrated whatever Valentinus vainly pretends to the contrary that by a Trinity we understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something real or really subsisting and that the Catholick Creeds have not been unaccustom'd to the Word After the same lewd manner he plays upon the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often Styling them an Impertinant Iargon But he ought to have consider'd that it is not the least Excellence in the Art of Teaching to be able to give things their proper Appellations and that nothing can be a more evident sign of a malicious narrow Spirit than to wrap up our Knowledge in a Cloud of ambiguous dark expressions especially in treating of a Subject so highly Mysterious that no Human Understanding is able sufficiently to explain it For whatever we can say of God is too mean and falls much below the dignity of his immense and glorious Majesty So that the Ancients did wisely observe that we could much easier tell what God was not than what He was And that saying of Iustin Martyr well deserves our notice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. 'T is extreamly difficult to conceive aright of God but to express or declare him fully is impossible and therefore 't was piously said by Evagrius Socr. lib. 6. Hist. Trip. c. 21. That the ineffable Mystery of the Trinity was rather in silence to be ador'd than dogmatically to be explained Thus we call God a Substance tho' in Propriety of Speech he cannot be so Styl'd for a Substance is capable of being Defin'd but God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 boundless and not to be circumscrib'd within any limits of Words Therefore I think we ought to handle such a Subject with the greatest humility and reverence and to be extreamly cautious how we make use of any expressions but such as are receiv'd common and most applicable to it Because God is in the Scripture Styl'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Hebrew Iehovah from Eijeh so in the like signification from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as from Deus they call'd the Divine Essence Deitas so likewise did they express the Deity by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Greeks do otherwise use the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Riches Goods or Possessions as in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of your Goods or Money and by Philosophers 't is us'd to signifie that which is contradistinguished to an Accident viz. a Substance But amongst Divines and particularly in this Controversie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put to signifie the Divine Essence It was indeed long controverted whether this Word ought to have been rendred into Latin by Essentia or Substantia but the generality have thought Essentia to be the most proper Translation and therefore do by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 express the common Nature of the Godhead in the Trinity 'T is likewise the common Opinion of St. Austin lib. 7. de Trin. that it is more properly rendred by Essentia But says he whether you take it for Essence which is the proper or for Substance which is the corrupted Translation of the Word it still denotes something Absolute not Relative So again lib. 5. de Trin. c. 8. I call that Essence which the Greeks term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and presently after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. One Essence but three Subsistences And in the same Book cap. 2. Est tamen sinè dubitatione substantia vel fi meliùs haec appelletur essentia quam Graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant St. Ierom in some places retains the Word Usia as in his Book against Lucifer In others he Translates it by Substantia as in his Epistle to Damasus Sufficiet says he nobis dicere unam substantiem tres persones subsistenies perfectas aequales cooeternas In the same place he renders it Essentia as Deus essentiae nomen verè tenet and again Nomen essentiae sibi vendicat propriè Deus As to the Word Hypostasis in Profane Authors it signified the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does witness St. Ierom in his Epistle to Damasus And Socrat. in 6. lib. c. 21. Hist. Tripartit tells us out of Irenoeus Grammaticus that the more Modern Philosophers took 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express the same thing and this signification it retain'd amongst the Divines too for some time Socrates makes use of it Fol. 179. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he was not of a different Hypostasis or Substance but the same with the Father But at that time a Person was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the same Author lib. 1. c. 23. Another while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were taken for Synonymous terms as in that passage of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Confessing the Son to be an Hypostasis and subsisting in God and that there is one God in three Persons or Subsistences At last they did upon very good grounds limit the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Person only and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 became equivalent terms as in Latin persona subsistentia so that a Substance with personal Properties was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the time of St. Ierom the Controversie about this Word was still on foot which makes him call it a Novel expression and therefore seeing some call'd substance Hypostasis and others were us'd to say three Hypostases i. e. Three Persons He asks Damasus his Advice what to do in the business Si jube as says he non timebo tres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicere And 't is plain from the Hist. Tripar that the Fathers were very cautious in the using of these expressions and seldom did it unless in a case of great necessity Upon this account it was that the Bishops assembled with Athanasius did industriously let fall the Dispute about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 resolving to make use of those Words only against Sabellius and were therefore concern'd lest that for want of Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Subsistence might be mistaken one for the other Ruffinus says the same lib. 10. c. 29. At present some Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Subsistence others more significantly term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence for as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in Greek derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so in Latin essentia comes ab esse However I think 't is no great matter which way it

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ergo he is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of the same Substance with the Father because what is such must be so some of these ways To which we Answer That there is another way or method which they have past over and which alone the Catholick Church hath approved of that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by Immanence or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Communication of his whole Nature to the Son who is therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantial with the Father And to manifest the coeternity the Fathers still call'd it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unspeakable and incomprehensible Which Phrases are certainly most Ancient since we find them in Iustin Martyr an Author immediately after the first Century who frequently condemns and refutes those other expressions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The parting as it were of the Divine Essence of the Father or as their Followers were pleas'd to term it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He condemns those likewise who affirm the Son to have been born either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the former I take to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Germination the latter to signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or efflux tho' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do import the same Thus much I thought necessary to repeat concerning the manner of the Generation of God the Son that it might the better appear what terms and expressions were us'd by the Ancients and withal how boldly and rashly this unsearchable Mystery is treated of by the Men of the present Age. Now as it doth not follow that because he that begets is one and he that is begotten is another therefore the Substance or Essence of the Father is one and the Substance or Essence of the Son is another so neither doth it follow that because he that begets is one and he that is begotten is another therefore the Word which was begotten must have been in time after him that did beget him This being nothing else but quibbling about the ambiguity of a Word as the Arians of old were us'd to do For upon the whole we do not deny but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proper to the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper to the Son provided the Words be taken in their due sence And therefore to avoid all mistakes about them let it be observ'd that First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie one that hath no manner of original at all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes him that is begotten of a Father In this sence the Father alone in himself is said to be unbegotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because there is not any thing from whence he derives his Original and in the same manner the Son may be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as he was begotten by the Father after an ineffable manner and in this sence these terms may very well be applied without any absurdity we may safely call as well Father as the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since neither of them had a Father and the Son only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being begotten of the Father Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. not Created In this sence the Philosophers call the Elements 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they are the first Principles and in the same manner the Creator is distinguish'd from his Creatures he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they are styl'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in this sence 't is plain that Christ cannot be call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he being not made i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is the whole indivisible Divine Nature Lastly If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be oppos'd to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of Time i. e. as that which never had a beginning but was from all Eternity is oppos'd to that which came after and had its beginning in time in this sence 't is plain all the three Persons in the Godhead must be ingenite since none of them had their beginning in time but were before all time And therefore these Propositions The Son is Begotten and only the Father is Unbegotten are not simpliciter or absolutely to be granted since in one respect the Son also is Unbegotten i. e. without Beginning CHAP. X. Whether or no it be proper to the Father to be call'd the One Only God LET us in the next place take into our consideration that Supremacy or Soveraignty of the Father whereof Gentilis so mightily boasts himself to have been an Assertor and sticks not to say that there have been none yet that he knows of who have been put to Death for asserting the Glory and Soveraignty of the Father That the Prophets Apostles and H. Martyrs underwent Persecutions Death and all manner of extremities for the Glory of the Son but that he can find no Martyrs for the Supremacy of the Father Our next Enquiry then must be what this Sovereign Prerogative is which belongs to the Father and cannot by any means appertain to the Son His Answer is this That the Father is the One Only God which the Scripture hath revealed to us I appeal to all good Christians whether this be not the highest Indignity and Blasphemy against the Glory of our Blessed Saviour so to appropriate the Title of God to the Father only as at the same time Sacrilegiously to rob and despoil Christ of his Divinity He tells us that whenever the Scripture speaks of the One God it is to be understood of the Father only and therefore says he Christ cannot be truly or properly God for whatever agrees properly to any thing Uni Soli cannot be accommodated or Communicated to any thing else which if true then according to Gentilis Christ will not only differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Essence or Substance from the Father but likewise cannot at all be styl'd God And therefore thô he had the confidence openly to avow the first Position namely That the Father and the Son were two Species essentially distinct and was grown so hardy in his impudence as without shame or blushing stifly to maintain such a distinction yet perceiving the latter viz. That Christ ought not to be call'd God did contain such open Blasphemy as must necessarily give the greatest Offence and Scandal to all good Christians he was willing to allow that Christ might be call'd God thô not strictly yet by Communication of the Divinity which admirable Salvo of his is still clogg'd with an Errour as absurd namely That Christ is of a later Existence than the Father The Father says he was from all Eternity and without Beginning the Son was Born in time and had a Beginning The Father is

Substance in the Three thus united Gentilis says that in these and the like places Tertullian spoke waveringly and will have them refer to Montanus his Paraclete which notwithstanding all this are very Orthodox But on the contrary we say that Tertullian against Hermogenes did not only speak doubtfully but did actually make use of the Phrases and Expressions of Arius when he says There was a time when the Son of God was not which saying must of necessity be extreamly well lik'd by Gentilis as that which doth make the Son posterior to the Father in the order of the Godhead But it is plainly an Arian expression the same with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we have already mention'd out of Nicephorus lib. 8. cap. 8. But Tertullian doth often recollect himself and not only makes use of proper expressions but seems likewise to be Orthodox enough in his Notions as in the same Treatise against Hermogenes he says Divinitas gradum non habet utpote unica The Divinity or Godhead can admit of no degrees as being but one These and the like passages do sufficiently demonstrate that Tertullian acknowledg'd no separation no division in the Godhead but yet in respect of the different Persons he did allow of a Numerical distinction And thus much we thought fit to take out of Iustin Martyr Ignatius and Tertullian these being the Fathers to whom Gentilis lays so great a claim as if they were wholly Patrons of his Opinion I shall not concern my self much with any of the others since the Opinions of Hilary and Irenaeus are too well known to give any one just occasion to suspect that they were favourers of this Pestilential Error and those passages Gentilis quotes out of them are answer'd by the Authors themselves Nor shall I at present bring any Quotations out of the many other both Greek and Latin Writers since Gentilis rejects all their Authorities CHAP. XVI Concerning the other Fathers especially St. Austin GEntilis then without any distinction rejects all other both Greek and Latin Writers and who cannot but wonder at the daring confidence of such a Fellow Here we have a censorious Upstart who like another Aristarchus boldly arraigns and condemns all Antiquity unless they will acknowledge Three Eternal distinct Spirits in the Divine OEconomy and all the three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled in the Nicene Council must be herded amongst the Hereticks because they confess'd but One God Eternal He prefers Arius before them all would he but have admitted the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as newly explain'd by himself But I will not oppose him with fallible Human Authority seeing we may easily consute this Blasphemous Error out of the Scripture it self And Arius whose wicked Spirit seems now to revive in or to rest upon this Monster of Iniquity was condemn'd of Old and confuted not by Human Authority but from the Holy Scriptures and Consent of the Church My design being Historically to make it appear that this wicked Man has set up a new Interpretation of Holy Scripture and to gain his Point the easier has without any modesty or civility taken liberty to rail at and calumniate not only the Fathers but likewise all the Orthodox Councils However he ought either to have submitted to such approv'd Authors and to the Consent of the Church or else to have confuted them out of the Word of God This he does not but cites some few places of Scripture upon which he puts a new Interpretation and when we deny this to be the true meaning of them and assert That the Church of God did never understand those places in such a manner and for proof of it appeal to all the Authentick Writers both amongst the Greeks and Latins he cries out That we are a parcel of Dogmatical Pedants and Hereticks and presently flies over to Arius and the Bishops which follow'd him as if there were a better Interpretation of Scripture amongst them than there is in Athanasius and those who approv'd of his Confession of Faith He treats St. Austin in a very scurrilous manner no ways deserv'd by so excellent a Writer He charges him as well as us with holding a Quaternity a Notion he never was so Phantastick as to dream of He styles that Reverend Father an Enthusiastick Writer a Magician and a Sophister such calumnies as he never receiv'd at the hands of his most Mortal Enemies The Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity he calls an Imaginary Being an Ens rationis and St. Austin's Goddess which is downright abominable Blasphemy And notwithstanding all this our crafty Scribler to reconcile himself to St. Austin and wipe off the Odium such rude expressions must necessarily bring upon him at last gravely pronounces this Oracular saying That he believes were St. Austin now alive and could enjoy but this clear light of the Gospel he would with his own hands throw his Books of the Trinity into the Flames A thing very likely indeed that St. Austin shou'd take Example from this vile Man and Perjure himself as he hath done But of this enough CHAP. XVII Concerning the Communication of Attributes or Proprieties THE Scripture speaking of the Son of God doth attribute that to one of his Natures which doth properly belong to the other as Ioh. 3. No one hath ascended up into heaven but the Son of man who is in heaven Christ indeed as he was the Son of Man could not then be in Heaven when he spoke these words nor did he take his Flesh from Heaven But all this is proper to the Divine Nature only and may be truly affirm'd of whole Christ by reason of the Personal Union of the Word with Man By a like form of Speech we say that God suffer'd and died for us which are very improper expressions if strictly taken since God cannot properly be said to suffer or to dye and therefore we use to add by way of Explication that it was in Carne assumptâ in the Flesh that he assum'd This way of speaking the Ancients call'd Communicatio Idiomatum or the Communication of Properties others call'd it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Damascene styles it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if we should say by way of Exchange or Mutual distribution whereby we attribute that to the Human Nature which is proper to the Divine as to be in Heaven before the Incarnation or when contrariwise that is attributed to the Divine Nature which is proper only to the Human as to Dye and to Suffer or else we affirm that of the whole Person which is truly and properly said because Christ in his Human Nature did dye thô not in his Divine Nor is this way of speaking in any wise improper or absurd For don't we in respect of us Mortals upon the very same account say That such a Man is dead thô this cannot be properly said of the whole Man for Man is Mortal only in respect of his Body his Soul is