Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	place_n	scripture_n	word_n	9,705	5	4.5641	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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.

decay of strength in Human Nature as rendred it utterly incapable of raising it self to such a degree of purity without a peculiar dispensation from above And tho' within the Church this Doctrine of God has always remain'd more uncorrupted and perspicuous yet nevertheless the most Religious have thought it a great piece of Wisdom to confess their own weakness in this Affair and have therefore been contented with those Discoveries God has been pleas'd to make of himself and have desisted from any farther search into this Sublime Mystery Hence in the Invocation of him this Phrase is made use of God of Abraham God of Isaac God of Jacob God of our Fathers c. And when Iacob made too curious an Enquiry after the Angel's Name he was repell'd by the Rays of the Divine Majesty and reprimanded by a Voice Wherefore is it that thou askest after my Name Moses also upon his asking after the Name of God who sent him to the Children of Israel received only this answer I am that I am and say I am hath sent me unto you We ought therefore in this business also to take notice of the Apostle's Advice Not to think above what we ought to think but to think soberly For it 's most certain when we cast our thoughts on things relating to God our Understanding sees as little if not less than the Owl at Noon-day But since there is a necessity still of Man's being instructed concerning God and this instruction is to be receiv'd from the Church alone 't is the best way to keep strictly to one form of speaking drawn from the Prophetical and Evangelical Writings because the Church has taken these from God's own Mouth whence the Apostle calls the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or inspired And this the Church kept pure and undefiled till a parcel of Ambitious Men rose up who laying no restraint on their wild Fancies made a very ill use of the simplicity of the Scripture and began to affix New Interpretations to Texts To keep these Fellows within their Bounds and to shew that their Opinions were contrary to Scripture 't was necessary that better Men should limit the sense of things in other words Wherefore since Words were to be interpreted by Words and Phrases by other forms of Speech they referr'd themselves and their Writings to the Scriptures Forasmuch as no one can speak better of God than God doth of himself And therefore when we are to speak of him it 's our Duty to consult him first speaking of himself Moreover as it 's impious to deny the use of Scripture-Forms of speaking so it 's downright Malice to condemn those that are commonly receiv'd so long as reason proves not that they maintain any thing against Scripture In Ecclesiastical Histories and Acts of Synods there are abundance of Examples were they pertinent to be mention'd here of this Nature Our Age has seen one in Valentinus Gentilis who that he might destroy the Unity of the Divine Essence in his explication of the Three Persons quarrell'd first with the receiv'd Terms such as are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Persons For as long as they were made use of he saw 't was impossible to maintain three Spirits distinct in Essence and Degree This small Treatise shews the unanimous determination of the Church concerning this Doctrine together with the rise of that Corruption My Lords I present this History to your Lordships because you presided at the Tryal and it was to your grief that you heard this Corruption of the true Doctrine was brought into the Church And since the account might prove useful to the World 't was not fit it should be made publick so much upon my private Will as your Lordship 's publick Commands The Lord Jesus Christ govern you by his good Spirit that you may lead long and happy Lives in these Honourable Stations to the defence of the Orthodox Doctrine and the interest of your Country Amen M. D. LXVII Cal. Junii My Lords Your Lordships most humble Servant B. Aretius THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS CHAP 1. HOW and where Valentinus Gentilis fell into those New Opinions and what great mischief he did by spreading of them Chap. 2. Upon what account he was brought to Bern. Chap. 3. Concerning his Writings and the Heads of his Accusation Chap. 4. Whether he ought to have been heard as Plaintif Chap. 5. Containing some Propositions taken out of his Books of the Trinity which we judge to be false Chap. 6. An account of his Errors about the Article of the Blessed Trinity Chap. 7. Of these Words Trinitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what they do properly signifie Chap. 8. What was the Opinion of Arius and wherein Gentilis and he do agree Chap. 9. Concerning the Generation of the Son of God and how we ought to understand the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. 10. Whether or no it be proper to the Father to be call'd the One only God Chap. 11. The Iudgment and Consent of Scripture with respect to this Article Chap. 12. Gentilis's Censure of the Fathers and their Writings Chap. 13. The Iudgment of Justin Martyr and Philosopher Chap. 14. The Iudgment of St. Ignatius Chap. 15. The Iudgment of Tertullian Chap. 16. Concerning the Fathers especially St. Austin Chap. 17. Concerning the Communication of Attributes or Properties Chap. 18. Containing some of Gentilis's Notorious Blasphemies Chap. 19. Of the vile Scandals he hath falsly thrown upon the Doctrine of our Church Chap. 20. Of the Cheats and Impostures whereby he indeavor'd to impose upon good well-meaning People A Brief ACCOUNT OF Valentinus Gentilis c. CHAP. I. How and where he fell into those New Opinions and what great mischief he did by spreading of them VAlentinus Gentilis a Campanian having lest his Native Countrey Cosentia Travell'd through Naples Sicily and Italy and at last arriv'd at Geneva There were at that time in the Italian Church of that City several Persons out of all parts of Italy who came thither upon very different accounts but were mostly such as being Banish'd out of their own Country for the sake of Religion had made this their place of Refuge Amongst them were several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inventers of New Doctrines Such was G. Blandrata a Physician who had newly began to attack the Doctrine of the Trinity but as yet all he did was in private only and by way of Letters to some familiar Acquaintance The Dispute was concerning the commonly received Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trinitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. At the same time M. Gribaldus an eminent Lawyer and Paulus Alciatus a Milanese were engag'd in carrying on the same design Gentilis was no sooner come to Town and heard of the Controversie but he wholly applied himself to the Study of it And in a short

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

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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

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