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
be taken so that the sence be the same So then the common Nature or Essence of the Godhead is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to which God is One but the Persons are term'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this sence they are said to be three Hypostases that is Subsistences or they are three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Persons or as the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three Persons in one Substance Iustin Martyr and others call them tres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Gentilis in his Explication of the Trinity does not only confound the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but goes yet farther and places the distinction of the Three Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or their Substance When we told him that this was plainly against the sence of the Scripture and consent of Antiquity his Answer was that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not to be found expresly in Scripture which was as much as Arius himself could have said for St. Ierom against Lucifer tells us that this was the very Argument Valens and his Followers us'd to turn the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the Church and at the same time to condemn the Confession of the Nicene Council But we have already shewn how this Word was taken up in opposition to Sabellius And tho' our Author would fain be thought an indifferent Person between Arius and Sabellius yet he seems most to espouse the Cause of Arius CHAP. VIII What was the Opinion of Arius and wherein Gentilis and he do agree BUT since it is yet disputed by many what was the Heresie of Arius it will therefore be worth our while briefly to enquire into his Opinions Especially since matters are now come to such a pass that Men dare openly avouch That he was not Condemn'd for allowing the Father only to be God but rather for asserting the Son of God to be a mere Creature Here are then two Propositions Viz. First That the Son of God was a Creature Arius asserted this but Gentilis doth not Secondly That the Father alone is the One Most High God who dwells in Light inaccessible This Gentilis does affirm but Arius seems not to have Asserted it Gentilis takes a great deal of pains in stating the difference between these two Positions to avoid if possible falling in with Arius However if his Assertion be true and it belongs only to the Father to be styl'd the One only God I cannot for my part see any reason why he and Arius should keep at such a distance For according to Gentilis he would have said nothing but truth seeing he was never call'd in question by the Fathers for calling Christ the Son of God since that Assertion of his was true and undoubtedly Orthodox But if the difference be only in Words and the sense of both Propositions be the same there needs no proof that they agree in their Notions To make this appear let us enquire in what manner Arius his Opinion has been deliver'd down to us We find in Theodor. l. 1. cap. 4. Alexander Bishop of Alexandria making complaint that Arius and Achilles denied the Divinity of Christ. His Words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Denying the Divinity of our Saviour and making him of the same Nature with all other Men and presently after They attribute to him says he a Temporal Beginning For thus speaks Arius himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. There was a time when the Son of God was not c. His Opinion is related after the same manner Hist. Trip. lib. 1. cap. 13. Deus say they non semper Pater fuit non semper fuit Dei verbum sed fuit quando Deus non Pater fuit Dei autem verbum ex non existentibus factum fuit c. i. e. God was not always a Father nor did the Word always exist but there was a time when God was not a Father and the Word was made out of nothing To the same purpose Nicephorus lib. 8. cap. 8. Deus non semper Pater erat sed erat cùm Deus Pater non erat Non semper igitur Dei verbum erat sed ex non existentibus factum est Qui enim erat Deus illum qui non erat ex non existente fecit c. You may see more to this purpose in the same Book lib. 8. c. 18. From all which it does appear that Arius did in the first place divide the Essence of God making one Essence of the Father and another of the Son and after that assigning only a temporal Original to the Son and therefore he so earnestly condemn'd the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might carry his Point for the Separation of Essence And deny'd the co-eternity of the Son that he might thereby establish the Notion of his temporal Original From hence follow'd more monstrous Absurdities viz. That the Son of God was a mere Creature and that he was made out of nothing For they were very well satisfied that the Essence of God being the most simple and withal the most perfect of any could admit of no gradual division and therefore they assign'd the Son a separate Essence And now 't is easie to discover wherein he and Gentilis agree Arius said That there was One Essence or Substance of the Father and another of the Son Gentilis distinguisheth the Father from the Son not only in Person or Hypostasis but in Essence or Substance also Nor doth it at all alter the case in that he saith The Word was begotten of the Substance of the Father and is consubstantial with him In which 't is confess'd he differs from Arius but nevertheless introduces a separation of Substance Arius then says The Son was made out of nothing This Man tells us he was not made out of nothing but out of the Substance of the Father But in this they both agree That quoad essentiam as to his Substance the Son is Numerically distinct from the Father We are told by Niceph. lib. 18. c. 47 48. that Philoponus a famous Philosopher drove on the same Argument For by dividing the Indivisible Nature of God into more Persons he ascrib'd it to them severally as to Individuals and distributed it to those three Subsistences of a Supersubstantial Nature He was likewise a great Champion of the Monophysites who by reason there was but one Hypostasis or Person in Christ asserted that he had but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Nature also which was made of both the Divine and Humane as on the contrary Nestorius from the two Natures of Christ concluded that he likewise must necessarily have two Hypostases or Persons Again Arius asserted That the Father only was Eternal but that the Word had a beginning which likewise was the Opinion of the Philosophers Philoponus and Themistius see Niceph. lib. 18.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
God per se or of himself the Son only by Communication from the Father just as a King may admit his Eldest Son into a part of the Government The Father is the One Only God but the Son neither the One nor the Only but a different God Here it ought to be observ'd that the Scripture doth sometimes speak of God distinctly i. e. with respect to a certain Person of the Trinity as when St. Iohn says The Word was with God where 't is plain he means the Father So again when Christ upon the Cross cries out My God My God why hast thou for saken me He directed that Invocation to the Father Mat. 27. But St. Iohn expresly says of the Son And the Word was God After the same manner St. Thomas speaking of the Son calls him My God and my Lord. Ioh. 20. in Acts 5. St. Peter saith to Ananias Thou hast not lied unto Men but unto God i. e. to the Holy Ghost At other times the Scriptures speak of God absolutely secundùm essentiam whereby we are to understand the whole Godhead from which none of the Persons is excluded or as it comprehends all three Persons as Ioh. 4. God is a Spirit We are God's Labourers We are God's Husbandry We are God's Building 1. Cor. 3. The wisdom of the World is foolishness with God With what God With the Father only exclusive of the Son No No. The Word God is here as in many other places taken essentially as it belongs to all three Persons But all this signifies nothing with Gentilis who will have the Scripture every where to speak of God distinctly and therefore must of necessity exclude Christ from the Unity of the Divine Essence and Propriety of the Godhead and lastly make him of later Existence than the Father But this is not all his Presumption and Arrogance carries him farther to make two distinct sorts of Martyrdom He thinks it a common ordinary piece of Service to dye for the Glory of the Son and has therefore found out a new and more exalted one namely to suffer for the Glory and Soveraignty of the Father 'T is certainly a grievous Errour to think of Worshipping or Honouring the Father and to neglect the Son yet a greater to exclude the Son from this Honour but the most grievous of all to pretend to Honour the Father by degrading and dishonouring the Son For God is to be Worshipp'd in the manner as he has manifested himself but he has plainly told us Ioh. 5. That he who honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father And Ioh. 12. The Father bears witness from heaven that He is glorified in the Son Wherefore let us keep to this certain perpetual form of honouring the Father I mean by honouring of him in the Son through whom alone he is well pleas'd with us for without the Son no honour can be acceptable unto God the Father Such subtile delusions doth the Devil make use of to overthrow the Glory of Christ under the specious pretext of vindicating the Soveraignty of the Father a Service which God never requir'd either from the Prophets Apostles or any other Holy Men of Old But 't is plain this method of honouring the Father tends to the disgrace and dishonour of Christ and that with a very little more trouble Gentilis may reconcile himself with both Iews and Turks CHAP. XI Containing the Iudgment and Consent of Scripture with respect to this Article THese false Doctrines of Gentilis have ever been condemn'd by the universal consent both of Scripture and the true Church which consent is plainly and in short as follows viz. The Essence of God is but One in which one Essence the Scripture sets forth to us three Hypostases or Subsistences to wit of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost so that we acknowledge neither three Gods nor any division of the Essence of God The Son and the Holy Ghost are so Consubstantial with the Father that they with him are One true eternal infinite God Nor is the appellation or title of the One most high God proper only to the Father exclusive of the Son and Holy Ghost This I say is the Judgment and Consent of the Scripture and the true Church For God is to be Worshipp'd in the same manner that he hath reveal'd himself and so the Church hath always Worshipp'd him but he hath declar'd himself to be One i. e. a Being in Substance or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One subsisting by himself Eternal Wise Good c. but hath manifested himself in three Persons or Hypostases That his Essence is but One will appear from many plain Testimonies as 1 Deut. 6. Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is one God 1 Cor. 8. We know that there is but one God Eph. 4. There is one God Deut. 4. The Lord Jehovah he is God and there is none else besides him Therefore he hath declar'd himself to be but One But that He hath likewise reveal'd himself as subsisting in three Persons is plain from Mark 1. and Mat. 3. where in the Baptism of Christ the Father Son and Holy Ghost are expresly mention'd And so likewise in the Institution of Baptism Mat. 28. Mark 16. Nor can we be put off by that evasion of Gentilis whereby he refers all this only to the Agreement and Consent of the Persons We do not deny that there is such a Consent of Will but we say that besides this there is an Unity of Essence Wherefore this Doctrine doth remain more firm and unshaken than a Rock of Marble namely That God has declar'd himself to be One in Essence subsisting in three Persons so that a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity is to be Worshipped And this is the only true way of Worshipping God And in this sence the Church hath still Interpreted the Scripture and the Apostles Creed I Believe in God who is One that is to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Essence where presently after is added by way of Explication an enumeration of all the Persons that it might appear who that One God Almighty was namely the Father Son and Holy Ghost Consequently Gentilis his Exposition must be false who makes this distinction I believe in God the Father and restrains the Word God to the Father only I say this is a Sophistical Exposition arising from a mistaken distinction Neither have the Nicene nor Athanasian Creeds or any of the Orthodox ever understood it in this sence Wherefore the Son and H. Ghost are the true and one God with God the Father and are so set forth to us in Scripture as often as mention is made of the One true God Iehovah or Lord of Israel Mark 10. Christ saith to the Rich Young Man None is Good save God only where if we admit Gentilis his Opinion to be true the Argument must run thus None is good but one that is God but the Father only is
the only God therefore the Father only is Good For Christ speaks exclusively Why callest thou me good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One God is the proper appellation only of the Father Therefore the Father only is Good Nor will he be ever able to extricate himself out of this Labyrinth unless he doth affirm that Christ may be said to be good also by Communication but the Father only to be properly and originally Good which is intolerable Blasphemy for it distinguisheth Christ from his Goodness as well as from his Divinity But the true way of Arguing would have been thus He that is properly and of himself good must necessarily be the one true and only God which we gather from Christ's own Words None is good but the One God But the Son and H. Ghost are properly and per se Good therefore they with the Father are that one Only true God from whom all things in the World which we call Good do derive their goodness and hold it at his Pleasure All the Cavils about the Father alone 's being the one Only God do wholly vanish and are dispell'd by this one Argument Besides this there are several other Testimonies to be found in the Scripture as in Isaiah 44. The One God is said to be the first and the last which Noble Character Gentilis understands to have been given only to the Father but he is confuted by St. Iohn who Revel 1. 22 23. gives the very same Titles to Christ from whence we may conclude That Christ is also comprehended under this Character of the One God Nor shall we ever be convinc'd of the contrary from his saying That Christ was call'd the first and the last only in respect of the Creatures Again the Word in the New Testament is call'd not a fictitious but a true God Joh. 1. But there is but One true God the Author both of the Old and New Covenant therefore the Word is comprehended under the Character of the One God who is the Author of the Covenant Again this One and Only God is call'd the True and Only Saviour Is. 43. 11. But if we believe Gentilis the Word in the New Testament is not the One and Only God by consequence neither will the Word be our Saviour which is not only false but blasphemous also For Ioh. 1. Andrew says We have found the Messias speaking of Christ or the Word Therefore the Minor which was of Gentilis's making is false Again There is no other God Elohim besides the Lord Iehovah but the Word according to Gentilis is not that One Only Lord Iehovah therefore he is not the true Elohim or God which conclusion is abominably absurd and by consequence so is that Proposition also of Gentilis from whence it follows Lastly The Word is in the New Testament call'd a Creator Colos. 1. Ioh. 1. but that is a Propriety of the only One God therefore the Name of the one Only God belongs to the Son also From these and the like places of Holy Scripture it 's easie to demonstrate how absurd and how impious a Doctrine it is to assert That the Father only exclusive of the Son is call'd the One Only God seeing on the contrary it has been the constant Faith of the Church That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are that One True and Only God reveal'd to us in the Scriptures I say One God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in Essence subsisting in three Persons Nor need we trouble our selves with that Soveraignty of Divine Essence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since in the Trinity there is a perfect equality none is greater or less than none is afore or after another Unus idem Deus Pater 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ejus semper assistens humane generi as says Irenoeus lib. 4. c. 47. But that Soveraignty which we oppose and deny introduceth an inequality of prius posterius of majus minus or of Order and Majesty in the Divine Essence and therefore is justly exploded In the mean time we are not ignorant how Christ in respect of his Human Nature and his Office of Mediator is inferior to the Father and is also so styl'd in Holy Scripture But this is nothing to the purpose since the inequality we expose is not in the Persons but the Essence of the Deity CHAP. XII Containing Gentilis his Censure of the Fathers and their Writings WE have now shewn our Doctrine of the Trinity to be agreeable to the sence of Scripture and the Orthodox Creeds We have made it plain how Gentilis by new and forc'd Expositions doth wrest the meaning of Scripture to establish his Notions and with like improbity doth Expound the Creeds also For not daring to deny the Authority of the Apostles Creed he hath by a wrong punctation falsly Interpreted it he safely despises and rejects the other Creeds and treats the Fathers with the same respect He upbraids Athanasius with corrupting the Nicene Creed and blushes not to call Athanasius his own Creed mere impertinent Jargon pag. 30. St. Augustin he calls a Dogmatical Pedant and others of them he bespatters with a great many more such Complements But however lest he should seem to have no part of Antiquity on his side he flies to all the Ancients and right or wrong hales them in to vouch for him But his principal Friends are Iustin Martyr Ignatius Tertullian Irenoeus and Hilary Yet he hath not so great a veneration for them neither but he can upon occasion despise reject and discard them also so that upon the whole he seems to claim nothing as his peculiar Talent so much as that excellent qualification which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Subtile Craftiness to distinguish his Cause by wresting the Law Wherefore we will now demonstrate and maintain our Doctrine out of those very Fathers he admits for Authentick whereby it may easily be observed how craftily he does abuse both their Authority and judgments in order to the Establishing his own Opinion CHAP. XIII Containing the Iudgment of Justin Martyr and Philosopher Iustin Martyr an Excellent Writer and who liv'd near the Times of the Apostles is very Orthodox as to the Article of the Trinity unless it be when his Words are maliciously wrested to the new way of Expounding Scripture For the better understanding therefore of this Father we must observe that his Writings were compos'd upon different occasions In his Disputing with Trypho the Jew he was to prove against the Jews that besides God the Father whom the Jews acknowledge to have been the Creator of all things there is another Person namely the Son of God who is also the true God Nor in this doth he at all divide the Substance or Essence but distinguishes betwixt the Persons or Subsistences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These passages are abus'd by Gentilis to establish his Notion of a distinct Essence But that this was never the Mind of Iustin will appear
〈◊〉 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
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
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
Immortal and survives after Death Yet because the Union of Soul and Body is that which makes the Man one hence it is that we affirm that of the whole Man which only agrees to one part of him So we say of Christ that he Suffer'd and is Dead which properly do not at all belong to the Divinity but agree to Christ as he is Man who is withal the same God and one and the same Christ. Here Gentilis cries out That we divide Christ and make a separation in him and yet allows that there are some properties which agree to the Word only before he took our Nature upon him Such is that Iohn 3. No one hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven the Son of man which is in heaven c. And Iohn 8. Before Abraham was I am And Heb. 1. By whom also he made the Worlds Now if as Gentilis grants these expressions can only agree to the Word before he was made Flesh I think it is plain that they are improperly attributed to the Human Nature and by consequence we rightly explain them by a Communication of Properties or Idioms And that we do not divide Christ nor make or maintain here any Separation is clear from the Doctrine of our Church wherein we do plainly acknowledge two Natures in Christ and yet without any confusion of the Natures the Personal Union making one and the same Christ the Son of God and the Blessed Virgin We likewise distinguish the Natures by their Properties but do not divide or separate them and by this means preserve whole and entire all the Offices of the Person of Christ. We say it is proper to the Human Nature to Weep to be Hungry to Sleep to Suffer to Dye to be circumscribed in a Place c. On the other hand it is proper to the Divine Nature to be impassible to make the Worlds to be with the Father from all Eternity before Abraham was c. We say that the Offices of Christ are to redeem Mankind to intercede for them to govern his Church and whatever else may be said to belong to Christ either as Prophet Priest or King Now Gentilis being able to deny nothing of all this 't is clear that he quarrels with the plainest expressions meerly out of heat and desire of Contention and doth therefore unjustly Style this Orthodox Doctrine such impertinent Trifles as deserve to be hiss'd out of the Church which he hath not only done in his Epistle Dedicatory to the King of Poland but hath also without any just or sufficient reason maliciously calumniated the same in the 12th Book of his Antidotes But there is yet at the bottom of all this something still more monstrously Heretical for he often affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had truly and properly Flesh and Blood that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was truly and properly Nail'd to the Cross and that the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did properly Suffer Now had this been said of Christ it had been without Controversie true but since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie only the Divine Nature in Christ which is united to the Human Nature in the Person of Christ he must necessarily think that either a Spirit hath Flesh and Bones which our Saviour himself hath positively deny'd or else that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was incorporated or rather turn'd into flesh or as the Monophysites did affirm both the Natures were made into one unless he will confess with us that 't is an improper way of speaking to say that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did Suffer or Dye whereby that is attributed to the Divine Nature which is proper only to the Human by reason of the Hypostatick union of both Natures in Christ which is what we call Communicatio Idiomatum CHAP. XVIII Containing some of Gentilis's Notorious Blasphemies ANother remarkable Instance of this Man's Impiety may be taken from that scurrilous impudent blasphemous Language he hath so freely bestow'd upon this most Sacred Mystery a Mystery that we ought rather in humility to adore than nicely to pry into It must be consess'd that even good Men do sometimes disagree in their Explication of Things and are not always of the same mind in their Interpretations of Scripture but yet they do it without railing without opprobrious Language and much more do they abstain from the blacker Crimes of Irreligion and Blasphemy 'T is no good sign of a Religious disposition to scandalize and bespatter the Subject in dispute and yet however Gentilis has been so liberal of his Railery that had he rak'd even Hell it self he could not have met with more dirty noisome Expressions nor more offensive to any Judicious Person He sticks not to call the Trinity an Idol the Tow'r of Babel a New Idol which we have erected above the Father a Tripersonate Mock-God a Diabolical Fictitious Person a Fictitious Propriety and Sophistical Person in a New God And pag. 8. An Imaginary Phantastick Person Pag. 28. he calls the Trinity Trium horrenda confusio Execrabilis Mixtura And pag. 33. says That we have invented this New God the Trinity out of our own Heads Pag. 39. he styles it a Fourth Idol which deserves to be thrust down into Hell And pag. 44. calls the first Person in the undivided Godhead a Magical Phantom an empty Spectrum that has begotten another Imaginary Person or meer Relation Antid 3. He calls the Deus Trinitas Nomen Monstrosum And pag. 56. he will have it be nothing but Magical Persons and Proprieties Again a Magical Propriety in a New Idol Pag. 34. The three Persons he calls Three Magical Impostures and the One God he styles a Fourth unknown Idol In his Printed Book Fol. 6. he calls the Trinity a meer human Invention diametrically opposite to the Truth of the Gospel The belief of a Trinity is perfect Sophistry And again the Trinity is Deus Trinomius a God only under three Names which last he seems to have borrow'd from Sabellius Again Fol. 8. The Trinity is call'd a New God indefinite Tripersonate a God which none of the Prophets or Patriarchs ever knew of which Christ never revealed nor the Apostles ever preach'd He styles our Blessed Saviour Christus tergeminus p. 14. of his Printed Book and in his Epistle to the Sons of the Church tells them Christ was transform'd into One which was not the Son of God Pag. 15. he calls him the Son of the Father that is says he of a meer empty Relation Then calls him a Tripartite Metamorphos'd Christ. God the Father he calls a fruitless idle unknown God But perhaps it will be said that these Railleries were design'd only against us not against the Mystery it self It is true indeed that Gentilis does generally endeavour to throw his Scandals upon us and bespatter our Doctrine with these abusive terms yet it can't be deny'd but that he is so
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
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
c. 50. Gentilis tells us The Son of God was begotten by a precedent act of Generation which if true then must his being begotten have succeeded in order of time To prove this he doth with his usual confidence quote that passage of Tertullin Non ideo Pater judex semper quia Deus semper Nam nec Pater potuit esse ante filium nec judex ante delictum Fuit autem tempus cum ei delictum filius non fuit i. e. God is not therefore always a Father and a Judge because he always was God For he could not be a Father before he had a Son neither could he be a Judge before there was a Criminal But there was a time when neither Criminal nor Son did exist In this Opinion he agrees with Tertullian and by consequence is a Partizan of Arius For it signifies not a farthing from whom this Sentence is quoted whether from Tertullian or any body else since it 's plain it gives us the true Sentiments of Arius From what has been said it appears That Arius and he are of the same Opinion in these two particulars Viz. 1. In dividing the Substance or Essence of the Godhead And. 2. In making the Act of Generation in order of time antecedent to the Existence of the Son which exactly agrees with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Arius CHAP. IX Concerning the Generation of the Son of God and how we ought to understand the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IN the next place Gentilis appeals to those Texts of Scripture wherein the Generation of the Son of God is reveal'd to us as Iohn 1. We saw his Glory the Glory as of the only Begotten of God and Psal. 2. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee which place is cited by St. Paul Act. 13. and the Apostle 1 Heb. 5. Then Gentilis farther concludes That Begotten is therefore distinguish'd from Unbegotten because the one hath always a beginning the other hath none Again that the Father is therefore call'd ingenitus Unbegotten because he derives his Original from none but all things had their Beings from him But the Son is therefore said to be Begotten because he had his beginning from the Father upon which account the Father is styl'd the Essentiator Being and the Son the Essentiated Spirit This is his way of Arguing and I think any one that has but half an Eye may plainly see how Arius his Argument lies couch'd under it For whosoever hath read Nicephorus Theodoret and the other Ecclesiastical Writers cannot be ignorant that this was the very Argument Arius and his Followers made use of In Answer to which we freely allow and acknowledge the Generation of the Son of God and readily grant that the Father is unbegotten the Son begotten but moreover we assert that this Generation was without beginning of Time and is of such a Nature as transcends the Capacities and Apprehensions of all Mortal Men. For the Word was in the Beginning and all things were made by him which Word is afterwards call'd the Only begotten Son of God Of the same Word the Prophet speaks when he says The dew of thy birth is of the womb of the Moruing which passage the Jews themselves confess to have been spoken with respect to the Eternal Generation of the Messias Therefore Gentilis his Argument is by no means conclusive This way of Generation being wholly inexplicable and without any beginning of Time by consequence there is no prius nor posterius no succession in it but the whole coeternal together How audacious then is the Mind of Man that dares pry into and endeavour to explain these hidden things of God If neither Ear hath heard nor Eye seen neither hath it enter'd into the Heart of Man to conceive those things which God hath prepared for them that love him How much more ought that Mystery of the Eternal Son of God and that of his Eternal Generation rather to be ador'd than fathom'd But let us see how the Ancients express'd their thoughts about this matter Theodoret in Book 4. cap. 1. tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. That God did not beget his Son in time nor after a certain season or period and in the same place he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Immutable Filiation Again he confesses the Son of God was begotten but it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an unspeakable inexpressible inconceiveable undeterminable manner by which words it plainly appears that the Ancients look'd upon this as a very great unfathomable Mystery They did likewise call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby to shew that his Generation was without beginning as may be seen in Damascene and in Theodoret in the place above cited And Socrates in his 1. l. c. 8. has a passage importing the very same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. By a mode of Generation inexpressible and unconceiveable by any created Nature From all which I think we may well conclude the Manner of the Generation of the Son of God to be truly ineffable incomprehensible and undeterminable Whereby it follows that the Word was begotten out of all time and before all time That the Son was always with the Father That God always was a Father and that there never was any time wherein the Son was not As for any other ways of explaining this Generation the Catholick Church and all Christian Writers Iustin Martyr Irenoeus and others have constantly rejected and exploded them A few of which I shall just glance upon Some would have the Son to descend from the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by division This seems to have been the Opinion of Philosophers who parted the Divine Essence into several Persons just as if out of the same Mass of Gold you would cleave two or three Bars or as you would divide any one totum into two or three parts Sic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Others were for having it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. by Germination as we see Scions bud out from Trees Others thought it might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by efflux or emanation as Children are naturally begotten of their Parents Others call'd it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. by eructation as may be seen from Arius his Epistle in Theod. l. 1. c. 6. And lastly there were others who believ'd it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by alteration of Substance See Socr. Book 1. c. 6. All these ways were rejected by Antiquity and the Arians too tho' for a different reason namely that they might hereby explode the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Consubstantiality Of which see Nicephor l. 8. c. 18. Their Argument ran thus The Son of God is not born of the Father neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor
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
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