COLLECTION OF PURITAN AND ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE I LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Tlieological Seminary Library littp://www.archive.'org/details/sliortliistoryofvaOOaret r A (hort H I STORY OF . I Valentiniis GeatiHs THE Tryed^ Condemned, and put to Death by theProteftant Reformed City and Church of Ber^^ in SwitzerUnd^ for Afierting the Three Divine Perfons of the Triruu^ , to be \Thrce Dlfim^yEter- nd Spirit /, Sec] / Wrote in LAtWyh-^ Bemdi^us Jretius, a Divine of that Ghnrch ^ arid now Tranllat- ed into En^UJ]: for the iiie of Dr, Sherlock Humbly Tendred to the Confideration of the Arch-bifhops and Bifhops of this Church and Kingdom. London^ Printed, and Sold by £. Wlntlock^ near Stationers-HaU^ 1696. ITHEOLOGICAL SE.\jINARY f ^ ' ^ ^ Princeton, N. J. f f I " ^^From the Rev. W. B. SPRAGUE, D.D. Sept. 1^39. f — TO THE Moft Reverend the Archbifhops^ and the Right Reverend the Bi- (hops of the Church oi England. My Lords^ Here ^refentyour Lprdfljtps with afhort Account of the Froceedings of an Emi- nent ProteBant Reformed Chnrch and State, againH 4l Note^ Tritheiftj for dffertmg Three Eternal Spirits in the Blef- fed Trinity ; induced thereto by the late fatal Growth of Trithcifm in our Church ; /r/ vented and afferted in the fame and yet higher Terms by Dr. Sherlock, \n his pretended Vindication of theDoftrineof the EverBleffed Trinity, in the Tear 1690. A?7d fince that by one J. B. Minifier of Folkftone in Kent, andHy- ling himfdf, A Presbyter of the Church of England (to the extream Dtfgrace of it), in a Book mitten in Defence of the f aid Dr .Sher- B 2 lock lock^ and his Tritheiftick Notions upon the fame Article J in the Tear\6()<^. and ft nee that alfo openly preached in the 'very Face of the whole Vniutrfity of Oxon, hy one Mr. Jofcph Bingham, then a fellow of Univerfity-Col- ledge there ^ on the Q.%th of O&iohtv^ in 1695. And laftly^ mdntained^ and with great and e- venfoammg Vehemence^ preached up in one of the mofi Eminent Cathedrals in England, by one of the Prebendaries of the fame^ frfi on the ^oth^Kov, ()^. and fince that on the i2/'/;e?f January 9.;. Whof Name^ together with theHeterodoxyes then and there delivered by him ^ are ready to beproduc^d^ as there jJ^iU be occafton. So that your Lordffjips can need nothing further^ either to alarm or convince you. That the Enemy has been fowing his Tares amongd us, while you fee them fo plen- tifully coming up even under your Eyes, As for Dr. Sherlock, he has over and truer declared^ and lately again * See Dr. shrhcn renewed * the fame De- Examination of the ^x- 1 ^^u-.^ „: nru^*. ^u^ ford Cenfure, p. 4^. ''^'^'^^ ^^^, ^^-'^r ^^^^^ ^^^ Three Divine Perfons are Three diillnct Infinite Eternal Minds or Spirits; and that it is Herefie and Non- fence to judge ctherwife; {JorHe^it feems^ may take upon him to declare Herefie without A Reprimand.; And as for Presbyter 5^. B. of Folkitone, he averts the very fann i^ Print. / ch God has committed to us to keep inviolahly^ and t ode- fend refglutely (md in a word) to favc, as mil iij- rcbefavedby. And therefore, my Lords I fhall recommend this important matter to your LordfhipSy much in thofe words of Mordecai to Efther. Who knows but that you are come to fuch high Place, Power and Dignity in our Church Church for fuch a Time as This? Jmd that God is now Trying whether you will make good the X^xlyou have fo often profeffed for our Religion heretofore^ by doing Jomething fgnal, great, and worthy of thofe Fro^ feffions non\ In a wordy I look ufon yowr Lordjhip as Ptrfons of that Sincerity and Clearnefs of Principky that if you believed this Doctrine of Three Diftinft, Infinite^ Eternal Minds, Spirits and Subllancesin the ever Bleffed Trinity, to be True, you would Loldly and openly Profefs ity which fwa you do not, why {hould not fo Scandalous 4 Corruption of our Faith, receive a Check by fome mark of your Lordjhips D if approbation? Hitherto I am fur e there has been a Profound Silence in this matter ; and I heartily wijb, the Enemies of our Religion may not pafs t/^at nicking Reflexion upon it , Tacent, Saris Ltudant. For in good earnesiit is very hard that Herefy foould over ^r an a Churchy only hecaufe we mufi not call it Hcrefie. But this is not theworsl of our Cafe neither. For a certain Socinian Writer {by a Spirit of Prophecy coming upon him from foaie above)* "*■ when xhs Nomind Trinitarians have all'd tii thef dr^ hoarfe, w*^a ry and ailiam*d, to Vniverfuies ani Bijhops t9 efpoufe their Caufi^ mi Cenfure tk real TrinitarianSy &c. All their Appeals notmthSlMdingy it will not be long e*re they are told by their/Superiors m the Church, Ihit it is expedient for them to be quiet^ leji tkimfelves bs Cenfufsi as Sabellians Aifi^er t& Dr, Bull, p. 68. col, i. pojitively fofitively teSs the Nominal Trinitarians (as he calls thofe rvho ajfert a Trinity of Di- vine Perfons^ in oppofitton to that of Three diftinft, Infinite Minds, Spirits, or Sub- flances) that it will notbe long before they be told by their Superiors in the Church, That it will concern them to beQuiet (that isj I fuppofe, to Write againft Dr. Sherlock smJihis Tribe no more) left they themfelves be cenfured as Sabellians. Now this^ upon 7/^ wordy is very home ^ and founds dreadfully indeed ; and having been written about the middle of Auguft lafl^ lets us into a further Underflanding of the late Letter fent to the Vice-chancellor of Oxon^ and fhewsfl^hat there were Reprimands preparing for us longbefore that fcandalous Sermon was Preached there ^ and confequently before ^/?f Oxford Cenfure could he thought of. And now if this he reaU lyfoy is not our Church J think we, in ableffed Condition ? mz,Thatfirfiy the Affertors of its receivedDoBrine are to be cen(ured\ next ^h at They are to he Cenfured by their Superiors in and of the fame Church. And thirdly P^ hat they are to be Cenfured as Sabellian Hcreticks. And lafily. That the %ocinians mufi be made frivy to this Dejign , while our Clergy knows nothing of it. What a dtfnalAfpe^t^ I fay, muH ail this needs have upon our Church and Clergy ? But as for the Charge of Sabellia-^ nifm,- which we are herethreatned withal hope it will he proved agalnft us, before we arcCen- fured for it ; and then we defire no gr enter fecurity againjl fuch a Cenfure, For does not Sabellius hoUlpnly onefmgle Suhfifieme in the Godhead^ and no more ? And can thofe then he Sabellians vi^ho hold three diflin6f Suhfisi- ences in the Same ? And does not Sabellius allow only a Trinity of Names y as of Father, Son a^d Holy Ghoft, ani that Founded tn a Trinity of Offices y as that the Father is the Creator of all things ; the Son the Redeemer of Mankind ; and the Foly Ghoft , the Sancfifer of the Church ? The AJfumptionof xphich Names and OSlCts having been a free effeci of God^s tvill, might by Confequence (had God jo pleafedi) never have been at all ; fince nothing in theDivine Nature could make it neceffary^But what is this to us^ who main^ tain three fuch Suhfjlences in theDivine Na- ture ^as ^r^EternaljNeceflary ^^^Infeparable (even by theDivine Powerit felf jhothfrcm the faid Nature, /?W/rf9;;2 one another. Ifro- teft I cannot tell whether there be more Malice or Ignorance tn fuch aCharge (as\often as fome have the face to make it.) But fuch is the Nature of Malice, that while it of ens mens Mouths, it commonly jbuts their Eyes. In the mean titne I would have this fcrt^ medling Socinian know , That the Ap- fertors of a Trinity of Perfons againji Yhree Dijlinfl , Infnite Minds or Spirits are sre neither grdrvnjh hoarfe with Appealing to Vnizierjities and Bijhops^ nor yet fo weary i«f'i^cl Parallel letween the Herefie of Valentinus Gentilis, and the Opinion of Dr, Sherlock, - to all the Particularities and Circumflan- Is of eaih ; it being emugh for rnj purpofe^ A they agree, and are thefame^ as to the B maim Advertilement. fnain of loth 5 (viz.) the Ajfertion ofThxtQ Eternal Spirits in the Blefled Trinity : But my chief Defign is to fl:>eiv the Noble Concern cf a Proteftant City and Senate in Findica* ting fo High an Article as that of the Tri-* nity againj} this Heretical Tritheijlical In* novation upon it. And accordingly I have given the Reader not the entire Hiftory only^ hut alfo the Epz- file prefixed to it^ and Dedicatory of it to the Lords of the Senate^ that fo it may ap- pear to a/lXt^at it was net ivritten and Puhli" Jhed at thefole fVill and Pleafure cf a pri- uate Mariy kit ly the Order and Authority of the Governor s of the Tlace^ thereby Own- ing. and Avowing their Proceedings againfl this Heretick^ to the whole World : And J. cannot but, in Honour to them, wjfb that all Chrifiian Governours and Governments would (Ijcw the fame Magnanimous 2.eal and Cou- rage in the Defence of their Faith; though I cmfejs^ I wifn not^ thai they jhould do the fame way. A A Brief ACCOUNT O F Vakntinm Gent ilk : CONTAINING Some Palfages of his Life and Jufl: Execution. Together with An Orthodox Defence of the Article ofths Holy Trinity agaicll his Blafphemies. B % c 5 ; )^ T O T H E Moft Honourable and Noble Lords, l^icholas a T)iefsbach^ Nicholas a Graffenried Treafiirer : And Tetermarmus ah Erlachy Moft Worthy Senators of the Re- publick of S £ %n, and his Moft Honoured Lords and Patrons, Health through Jefm Chrift. TO Difcourfe modeftly of God, and Matters relating to him, is no fmall part of Religion. For fince the Nature of God is incom- prehenfible, his Power infinite, and his Name inexpreffible , no thought B 5 can The Epiftle Dedicatory. can comprehend his infinite Power, no Eye approach fo glorious a Lighcj, no Tongue can declare ic : And ion this reafon the noore found Philofo- phers have been very fparing in their Difcourfes upon this Subjedt. Plato is commended for his Modefty in this cafe ; who, tho' he is not afraid to ftile God, The Creator of the World, a Lover of Mankind, and the provident Curator of all things ^ {Forafmuch as he is a m.oft Wife Be- ing, and doth not flight and defpile the Work of his own Wifdom ;) yet notwichftanding all this confefleth. That the Eyes ofMenaretoo weak, to {ee through Matters of Divi- nity- Jriflotle was fattsfied with placing feme one firft Mover in the Hea* Vens. But he dares not fay one word about the Nature of God, Others thought fit wholly to omit this Que^ ftion. The Judgment of Svmnides on the Cafe is commonly known j who i /;er npijTie ueatcatory. who being ask't by Hiero about the Nature of God, prolong d the time a^ood li?hile^ by requefting more Days for Deliberation, and at laft returned this Anfwer, The more 1 think ont^ the lejs I underjland of it. After fuch a manner did the EKcellency of this Divine Nature exercife and tire the livelieft Wits without the Church, that they were at laft fore d to acknowledge the infcrutability of the Majefty thereof: And on the other fide they perceiv'd fuch a blind* neftand decay of ftrengch in Human Nature, as rendred it utterly incapa^ ble of raifing it felf to fuch a degree of purity without a peculiar difpen* fation from above. And tho' within the Church this Doctrine of God has always re- main'd more uncorrupted and per^ Ipicuous ; yet neverthelefs the moil: Religious have thought it a great piece of Wifdom, to confefs their own weaknefs in this Affair ; and B 4 have 8 Tl?e tptjtle vedicatory. have therefore been contented with thofe Difcoveries, God has been pleas'd to make of himfelf, and have defifted from any farther fearch into this Sublime Myftery, Hence in the Invocation of him this Phrafe is madeufeof; (^od of ^ht^hzm^ God of Ifaac, God of Jacob, God of our Fathers^ 3cc. And when Jacob made too curious an Enquiry after the An- gel's Name, he was repelld by the Kays of the Divine Majefty, and reprimanded by a Voice 5 Wherefore is ity that thou askeft after my ISlame ? SMoJes alfo upon his asking after the Name of God, who Tent him to the Children of Ifrael^ received only thisaniwer, 1 am that lam ; and fay, J iWi hath fent me unto you. We ought therefore in this buiine(s alfo to take notice of the Apoille's Advice, Not to think , aboye what we ought to th'tnk^ hat to think foberly. For it's moft certain, when we cafl our rthoughts on things relating to Gad, our 1 1)6 tpijtle Vedicatory. our Underftanding fees as little, if not lefs, than the Owl at Noon-day. But fince there is a neceffity ftill of Man's being inftru^ed concerning God , and this inftrudlion is to be re- ceived from the Church alone, 'tis the beft way to keep ftri(5tly to one form of fpeaking , drawn from the Pro* phecical and Evangelical Writings ; becaufe the Church has taken thele from God's own Mouth ,• whence the Apoftle calls the Scripture eeovrvev- ^©-, or infpired. And this the Church kept pure and undefiled, till a parcel of Ambitious Men rofeup, who laying no reftraint on their wnld Faacies, made a very ill ufe of the fimplicity ofthe Scripture, and be* gan to affix New Interpretations to Texts. To keep thele Fellows within their Bounds, and to fliew that their Opinions were contrary to Scripture, 'twas necelTary, that bet* ter Men fliould limit the fenie of things in other words. Wherefore fince I p The bfmeVedtcdlorj. ^nce Words were to be interpreted by Words, and Phrafes by other forms of Speech, they referred them* lelves and their Writings to the Scri- ptures. Forafmuch as no one can ^ak better of God, than God doth of himfelf And therefore, when we are to (peak of him, it's our Du* ty to confult him firft fpeaking of himlelf. Moreover as it's impious to deny the ufe of ScripturcForms of ipeaking ; fo it's downright Chalice to condemn thofe that are commo7)ly receiVd^ fo long as reafon proves not, that they maintain any thing againft Scripture. In Ecclefiaflical Hiftories and hCts of Synods there are abundance of Examples (were they pertinent to be mentioned here) of this Nature. Our Age has k^n one in Vakntinus Qentilis ; who, that he might deftroy the Unity of the Divine Efience, in his explication X^ of the Three Perfons, quarreltd firjl with the receiyd Terms , fuch as T/;e EftHle Dedicatory. 1 1 as are the i'nx and OTrf^atn; of the Pep See Dr^ fons. For as long as they were made f^^'^i^ ufe of, he faw 'twas impoCTible to fame maintain three Spirits diftinft in E& ^r^^\ fence and Degree. a^apflar fro7ntheJ. Words. The Truth is, That which has confounded thii My Aery {viz., of the Trinity) has been the vain endea- vour to reduce it, to Terms of Art, fuch as Nature, Ef- fence, Subltance, Subfiftence, Hypoftafis, and the Ike. Find. Trin. p. 1 38. 1, the laft, and page 1 39. 1. the fid!:. This fmall Treatife fiiews the una- nimous determination of the Church concerning this Dod:rine, together with the ri(e of that Corruption. SI4y Lordsy I prefent this Hiftory to your Lordfhips, becaule you pre- fided at the Tryal ; and it was to your grief that you heard this Cor- ruption of the true Do6lrine was brought inco the Church : And fince the account might prove ufeful to the Yv'orld, 'twas not fie it fliould be made publick Co much upon my pri- yate Will^ as your Lordfht^s jmhlick Qmmands. The 1 1 T1}e Eftftle Dedicatory, The Lord Jefus Chrift govern you by his good Spirit, that you may lead long and happy Lives in thefe Honourable Stations, to the defence of the Orthodox Do* arine, and the intereft of your Country. Amn. M.D.LXVII. Cal, Junii. i5M> Lords J Xour Lordjhips tnofi humble Servant, B. Aretius. THE I »5 ) THE CONTENTS O F T H E CHAPTER Si CHAP I. HO W and where Valentinus Gcntllis Jell into thofe New Opinions^ and tvhat great mifchief he did ly fpreading of them. Chap. 2. Vpon what account he was I r ought to Bern. Chap. 3. Concerning his Writings^ and the Heads of his Accufation, Chap. 4, Whether he ought to have heen heard as Plaintif, Chap. 5. Containing fome Propofitions ta* ken out of his Books of the Trinity ^ which we juJige to lefalfe. Chap. 6* 1 he Contents. Chap. 6. An account of his Errors^ about , the Article of the BlefTed Trinity. Chap. 7. Of thefe Worets^ Trinitas^ ioiV, uTTDsccci;, and what they do properly Jig- nifie. Chap. 8. What was the Opinion of Arius, and wherein Gentilis and he do agree. Chap. 9. Concerning the Generation of the Son of Gody and how we ought to un- derjland the Words j^vvhTo^, and ocyl^- Chap. 10. Whether or no it he proper tif the Father to he caltd the One only God. Chap. II, The Judgment and Confent of Scripture^ with reffe^ to this Arti-- cle. Chap. IX. QGntiViSs Cenfure of the Fathers and their Writings, Chap. 1 5. The Judgment of Jufiin, Marty t^ and Philofdpher. Chap. 14. The Judgment of »?/. Igna- tius. Chap. 1 5'. The Judgment of Tertullian. Chap. I ^. Concerning the Fathers ^efpecially St. Auftin. Chap. 17. Concerning the Communication of Attributes, or Properties* Chap. 18. Containing fome of GcntiliiX Notorious Blafphemieso 6hap. 19I The Contents. 15 Chap. 19. Of the vile ScandaU he hath faljly thrown upon the DoSrtne oj cur Church. Chap. io. Of the Cheats and Irnpofiures voherely he indeavor d to irnpofe upon good (weU-meaning) People. A ( 17 ) A Brief ACCOUNT O F Valentinus Gentilis^ &;c. C H A P. I. Hoia?, and where he fell into theft KeUf Opinions^ and 'fiphat great mijchief he did by f^reading of them. VAlentims GetU/liSy a Campanian^ ha- ving left his Native Countrey Co- fentia, Travell'd through NapleSy Sicily^ and Italy^ and at laft arriv'd at Ge- neva. There were at that time in the ItA- //tf« Church [of that City] feveral Perfons out of all parrs of Italy^ who carae thither upon very diflerent accounts ; but were moflly fuch, as being Banilh'd out of their C owa 1 8 A brief Account own Country for the fake of Religion, had made this their place of Refuge. Amongfl: So that them were feveral jt^ivSv ^yfjAizov eu^eloui, ml'-^fiud hiventers of New Dodrines. Such was feviral G, BlarJrata a Phyfician, who had newly Eupnx.^- began to attack the Dodrine of the Trini- 'Anti'emer ^Y J t)ut as yet all lie did was in private on- thanhim- ly, and by way of Letters to fome familiar feif. Acquaintance. The Difpute wasconcern- j.,^ ing the commonly received Terms, ^^-^^ ^•^ and uttcsixot;, Trimtas^ c>oa;o7oi/, &c. At the fame time M.Grilaldus an eminent Law- yer, and Tauliis Alciatus a Milanefe WGre engag'd in carrying on the fame defign. Gtntilis was no focner come to Town, and heard of the Controverfie, but he wholly applied himfelf to the Study of it. And in a fliort time he and his Friends became fo great Proficients in it, as boldly to aflert, That the ReformM Churches'were flill a- greed with the Fapijls in that abominable and grievous Error, of fubfcribing to the Article of the Trinity : For by that Do- drine of theirs, they as well q,% the Tapifls^ 5^ y:,^^ did not defend a Trinity, but rather a Qua- Pliiiopo- ternity. That a true Trinity ought to con- nusjon- /jj^ ^/ three EttrKaUidinti Spirits, dii' Dr. Sher- jcnng jrcm each other ejjentiaUy rather than lock, tvith pcrfonally. This was what thefe Innovators ^y'^'^^5did then unanimoufly profefs; but falling thci[uck afterwards into different Fadions, they ran TriU, into Of Valentinus Genrilis. \^ into fe vera I contradidory and extravagant Opinions: And being call d to account for their Dodrines at Ge-yieva, they all made a fliift fome way or other to get off; by what particular means, I fhall not now concern my felf; my chief defign being to give a brief account o{Gentilh only. Who though he had undertaken to de- fend the fame Opinions with Bhmdratay Grihaldus., and Jlciatus^ yet fliortly after made his Recantation, and by an exempla- ry Pcnnance, publickly abjur'd his Novel Do6i:rines. This happened in the Year lyfS ; toteftifie the truth of which there is extant a Narrative of the whole Proceed- ings. But having thus folemnly renounc'd bis own Opinions more for fear of Death, than cut ofany realienfeof their Impiety, and ftill retaining a ftrong defire, of defending them, it was not long, eVe defpifing the CalvinA>j facred Obligations of his Oath, and c^m- jjad moji mitting the mod horrid Perjury, he \\^d -perHdiouf iwm Geneva. ^f''^^'^ Thrice. But Tritheifts tnufl be allowed to have more skjH in deaiir.^ with an Oath, than other Men, See Cilvia' s.Narr. it ive of Gentilis, in his Opufcula, f. 764. Near which place was the Town of Far^ ^i(e, where M. Grihldm lived, with whom Q% h© 20 A Urtef Account he aflbciated himfelf : And in the fame place was Alctatus^zvid with him a certain School- mailer, and Tutor to GrlhaUus\ Chil- dren ; amongft whom (after the coming oi Gem His) there were frequent Conferen- ces and Difputes about the fame Contro- verfies ; by all which Gentilis was mightily confirmed in his Notions : And fo leaving them, he went to Lyons^ where he was fur- nilh'd with plenty of Books by ont Baptifia Lucenfis^ and there made Colledtions out of the Fathers in order to confirm and eftabhfh his new Opinions. And feeing both the Latin and Greek Fathers were univerfally quoted by the Orthodox, he made it his bufinefs to confult the moft ancient of them. But the Colledions he made, were only fome miferable, imperfed:, broken Quota- tions out of Ignatim's Epiflles, Juflin Mar^ tjr^ and Tertul'Uan ; nay, fo impudent was he,55sto ranfackthe Alcoran for Authorities, and quote even Mahomet himfelf. And then he very roundly condemned and exploded all the reft of the Fathers, fuch as St. Auflin^ St. Jerome^ St. Bcifil^ Hhryjcjhrne^ Dawa- /(:^/;d',and whoever elfe had plainly exprefs'd their Thoughts concerning the Trinity in a different way from him. Nay, he wholly rejeded fome Books in Jujlin Martyr and lertulliany and .queftion'd the Authority of others. Of Valencinus Gen tills. ri others. And becaufe fo grand an Afflir could not be fuccefsfuUy manag'd without Writing, hefet himfelfupon thatalfb;and in a Ihort time wrote a Book, entituled his AntidoteSy wherein he endeavour'd to vin- dicate himfelf againft his Adverfaries of Geneva^^v^^ toanfwer the Objedions,which the Minifters of the Italian Congregation there, had produc'd againft his Opinions, The Book, which he made was not pub- lilh'd, but was found lying by him in MSS. Being now furniiliM with new Arguments and Reafons, he went to Gremhle^ where his dear Friend Grilaldiis was then publick Profeflbr. And befides all this he was now fall'n into a Diftemper, which forcM the needy Gentleman to feek out for a place, where he might be kindly received, and find a comfortable retirement and fubfift- qnce during hisSicknefs. Whilft he was under Cure, his Principles began to be known abroad, upon which ac- count he was commanded by the Magi- ftrates to exhibit a Confeflion of his Faith, which he fo cunningly contrived, by abu- fing the Reform'd Churches, and in parti- cular Mr. Calvin^ that it was adm.itted fof Orthodox by the * Papifis, Buc he faid "P^rtku: nothing at all to the purpofe as to the main qX\^^^ point and bufinefs ot' the Controverfie. duV From thence he went to Chayrhrej a Neigh- C 5 boiiring , 21 A iBrtej Account bouring Town, but being diftarb'd in this place a!fo, he return'd to Fur^ice, By this time his Dcdlrines began to make a noife in the World. For Geneva^ being not far off. See the ac' ^^y2.^ 2\M> to give an ample TeflimonyoiihQ of whole Proceedings. And he himlelt was well enough known by his rambling about at Lyons^i Chamhrey^ Grenoble^ and in Dau' pbhy. The Town of Fargia is in the Prefefture of Gahm^ and belongs to the llluftrious Lords of Bern. The Governour of which place being advertised ol the arrival of tlris Peftilent Fellow, order'd his Officers to ap- prehend him., and bring him to Gamm ; where he was put into CuHody, but alter fome tim.e, was released out of Prifon, tho' ftill bound to his good Behaviour. But notwithfianding all this, he ftill continued induftrioufly to propagate his Errors, de- nying that his Opinions did in any wife in- terfere with thepubHck Peace. And here he play'd a frei'h Prank. For when the Governour had demanded of him a ConltlTion, v.ith defignto fendit io Bsrf^^ there to be examln'd by the Clergy; what did Gent u is do, but fent it to the Prefs, pretcncting the Governour's Command for ib doing: To this ConfeiTion he added fome Propolitions with many fcurrilous Reflect- ions upon St. Atkanajms. Nor was this enough) vf vaienciniis ucncins. 2? enough, but he muft Jikewife abule the Name and Authority of the Governour, by Dedicating his Book to him, which fo high- ly incens'd the Governour, that could he have laid hold of the Offender, he would immediately have thrown him into Gaol again. Hence he went back to LyonSy where the Provoft of the City put him into Pri- fonforthe very fame Doctrine, and kept him there almoft two Months, but at lafc hegain'd his Liberty by muchfuch another Trick as before. For he fo foften'd his Book of Antidotes and Confejfion^ that they ra» ther feem'd Libels againfl Mr. Cdvin^ than Treatifes againfl the Trinity ; and fo he got free. The next Summer he went into Poland^ being invited thither by Blandrata and Al^ ciatuSy who look'd upon him as a fit In- ftrument to raife Innovations in the Chur- ches of PoLwd, Here he ftay'd for above two Years, to the great Mifchief both of Church and State. And had not Divine Providence confounded the Defigns of thcfe Men, by fetting them at variance a- mongft themfelves , 'tis probable the Wounds they had given Religion might have proved more dangerous to the Church. For Bia^drata and G^^itHis turn'd Anans, and Akiatus a Mahometan ; and C 4 others ^4 ^ J^^^^J Mcomt others ( as their wild Fancies led them) embrac'd more monftrous and extravagant Opinions. And thus having difturb'd the Peace of the Church, they now began to quarrel amongft themfelves : And that this is true, the prefent unhappy ftate of Po* land does fufficiently tefiifie. The Fol- lowers of Blandrata were arriv'd to fuch a pitch as to avow and openly defend the Dod:rine of Arlm. They condennn'd the Council of W/c^, and the Creed made by it; ridicul'd and exploded the Terms '^^'s 'uTRjVaci^, 'o<>Lci(nov. Some denied the Incar- nation of the Son of God, and others im- pugned the ImmortaUty of the Soul ; a third fort aflerted, that our Saviour had his Beginning and Exigence from the Virgin Mary^ a fourth allowed of Fclygmny ; and a fifth fort became Patrons of the Extrava- gancies of Mahomet. Thefc are the fad Efle(3:s of thofe Spirits of Error, which Sa- tan (by the juft Judgment of God) lends to delude the old, decaying World. How great the Diftradions and Confufions were that follow'd the Publication of thefe erro- neous Dodrines , we may eafily gather from the King's Proclamation , ftridly commanding all fuch Strangers as v/ere Setters up oi New Dodrines, immediately to depart the Kingdom; by which Edid, Gent'ilis\ amongft the reft", was driven out of Of Valentinus Gentilis. ij^ oi Poland. Being expelPd Poland^ his next Journey was into Moravia^ where he join'd with the Anabaptifts. From thence he v^twx.ioV'tema\ everywhere, as he tra- vell'd, difperfing his new invented No- tions. But flill continuing unfettled, indeed being able to flay no where, he began to think of returning into Savoy ^ believing, as he faid, the Churches there to J3e the moft moderate, and lefs infeded of any whatever ; and, befides this, he was in hopes to find Gr'ilaldus, and the reft of his Accomplices alive, from whom he might receive affiflance ; Mr. Calvin (whom he always found a moft zealous Adverfary to all his Novelties) being now dead. All thefe Confiderarions put together, made him look My^ox\ Savoy ^ at this time, as the moft fecure place of Retirement, after fo many dangerous Adventures. But as the wife Providence of God had ordain'd he ftiould by his own Folly blindly run ou upon ruin, he came to Qa'ium^ where the very fame Governour, he had formerly . affronted, was then by an extraordinary Commiffion, continued Governor of that Province. To him Gent His made his Ap- plication, and begg'd of him the Favour of a Publick Dlfputation: The Governour's Anfwer was, He fhould be fure to have Jufticc 20 */? Drtej Account Juftice done him : And thereupon com- mitted him to PrifoHa Thus was this fubtle, cunning Heretick, who had been fo infufferably troublefome to fo many Churches, brought into fuch ftraits, that He was n^ver afterward able to extricate himfelf. This I thought necelTary to beat large premifed, that the Reader might the bet- ter be iniorm'd, how he came to fall into thefe ftrange Abfurdities; and in what Pla- ces he difpers'd them ; what a Difturber he had been of the Peace of the Churcli ; how oft he had brought himfelf by thefe Practices into very dangerous Circumftan- ces; and yet ftill by fom.e crafty Evafion or other, made a fhift to efcape, till at laft Divine Juftice brought him to condign Pa- piihment. CHAP. Of Valentmus Uentius. 27 w^ CHAP. II. Upon 'Pi>hat Account he was brought to Bern. TH E Senate of Ber?i were foon ac- quainted with his Confinement at Gaium^ which happen'd on the xel, of 'JHne^\^66. And underflanding, (i.)That he maintain'd and taught the fame Errors he once had abjur'd ; and, (x.) That there- by he had involv'd himfelf in a grievous Perjury; (3.) That he had condeniined our Church as ftill fubjed: to Papal Slavery; when at the fime time he himfelf^ tho' in a PopHh Country, could publiih fuch a Conleffion, as eafily procured him Liberty. (4.) That he had actually endeavour'd to undermine the DoGrine of the Trinity* (5-.) That Poland had been mightily di- (iurbed by him and his Accomplice?* (6.) That the Ring- Leaders of the FaQion (who formerly did all profefs the fame Opi- nion) were now altogether by the Ears ; one an Arian^ and another a Mahometar^^ (3'c. (j.) That their Dodrines u^ere pub- licldy condemned throughout G^rmayiy ^ their ^8 A Sne/ Account their Errors animadverted upon from tk 'AnMere- pulpit, and their Opinions, both by Wri-- jBre not . \ r^r • • n t a, - preached ^^»g ^nd DifpHtations, m all the Schools from were every where rejcded and exploded. feforl The Senate upon thefe Accounts ordered their Uni- him to be brought to Bern, Befides all verfities; this, he was to give the Governour of re«T^' (?^/«w SatisfaOiion for the Book, which he gaindby publifhed and dedicated to him. Nay ^mont ^^^^^ Gentilis himfqlf, perceiving the Go- "thmTMnd vernour did fo highly refent the Affi-ont, no more, which he had offered him by the faid Dedi- cation, made his Appeal to the Senate at Bern^ whither he was brought the ig,th^ ef July. CHAR Of Valentinus Gentilis. ^^ C H A P, III. Gncerning his Writings and the Heads of his Accujation. AT Bern he continued under Confine^ ment for fome time, without having any thing elfe done to him. At laft, by commafnd of tlxj Senate, the Papers, which were found about him, vrere examined* The firft was a Book wrote with his own hand, and dedicated to' 'Sigtfmund King of ^ Poland^ confiding' of 29 Sheets and 175 Leaves. In this Book wa» con- tained the whole Syftem of his Dodrine, and Principles \ tho I>e aiBrmed he had one much more compleat, tranfcribed by Blandrata. In the Epiftle Dedicatory, which is very long, he courts the Favour, and begs the Protedlion of his Mnjeily, both for Himfelf and his Caufe. Then repeats th.eConrefrions lie made at Geneva^ before his Recantation ; 3he laft of which Con- feffions having been confuted by them of Ge^eva^ he fubjoins to ir, by way of De» fence,- his Book of Antidotes y which he fgrmerly ^(5 A ©We/ Account formerly compofed at Lyons, Then he falls upon refuting the 1 3 M. Chapter of the flrft Book of C^/i/i/^'i Inftitutions ; and, in the fame place, utterly condemns the Doiftrine of the Trinity, as it had hitherto been delivered and taught in all Chur- ches whatever. Next to that he pro- duces feveral Propofitionsout of St. Avftln ; efpecially out of his fifteen Books of the Trinity, which together with their incom- parable Author, he rejeds and expofes with all.^ imaginable Scurrility. After that he *ih^D'r pjfoduces feveral nice PalTages out of the shock's Scripture, the Fathers, and the Alcoran, in Modeft defence of his Dodrine. And laft of all ^on"e?c." annexes his Annotations upon Athanafiits * to the end of the Book. S-econdly, There were found fome Ver- fes wrote with his own hand,being nothing elfe but a bitter Scurrilous Libel againfl: the BlefTed Trinity, and its Worfliippers. Thirdly, A Book in Italian, with ano- ther in Latins of the fameftrain, concern- ing the Incarnation of Chrift. Fourthly, A printed Book under a falfe Name,dedicated to the Governour of Gaium^ with a preliminary Difcourfe to the Clergy ; which though it carries Antwerp in the Ti- tle Page, yet was indeed Printed at Ly- ons. Out Of Valentinus Gentili^. 31 Out of all thefe Papers were collected fe- veral Articles, with the Heads of an Indict- ment to be preferred againft him, which are all reducible to thefe tour particulars. Firft, That he dilTented from Us, and %%"^^^ all the Orthodox in the Dodrine of the loci^"^'^' Trinity. Secondly, That he had thrown many Scandalous and unheard of Imputations upon- our Church, and charged her with Herefie. Thirdly, That his Writings contain ma- ny impious Blafphemies, frequently us'd by him in his Difputes concerning the Trini- ty ; and that in his Behaviour he could not abftain from the like impudent Scurri- lity. Fourthly, All the Cheats and Impoflures were notoriously evident, which he com- monly us'd in difguifing his Opinions, ia working out his own Deliverance, and fe- duci^jjg otherSjto the danger of their Lives : But of this in its proper place. When thefe things were urg'd againft him, namely, That Firft, He had entertained intolerable er- roneous Notions about the Trinity. That Secondly, He had falfly charg'd us with feveral Errours, which none of us did ever defend 11 A ^nef Account defend , nay, more would never permit a- ny Body elfe that did harbour or maintain fuch Notions. That Thirdly, His Writings were fill'd with many horrid Blafphemies, reflecting not fo much on the Perfons of his Adverfaries, as on the Sacred Subject in difpute. And Lafl:ly, That by his fhuffling and imper- tinent Digreflions, he fo mightily perplex'd and obfcur'd the Caufe, as gaw too juft rea- fon to fufpeit he did induflrioufly feek for Evafions. We therefore defir'd him fairly and honeftly to give in his Anfwer to each particular that (hould be asked him. Here Gentllis made a long Speech about the Infirmity of his Body, the crazinefs of his Head, and the weaknefs of his Memory ('which was now fo mightily decay'd, that he could fcarce remember the Adions of one whole Day, and therefore being in fuch a condition, might not perhaps be able to give a reafonable Anfwer to all their Inter- rogatories) with many more of the like idie - Excufes, to avoid being brought to the Bar as a Malefador, and gain the priviledge of being heard as Plaintiff, which unlefs they granted him, he protefted he could not have Juftice done him in fo w^eighty a Caufe. CHAP. of Valentinus Gentilis. ^ % i CHAP. IV. Wl?ether he ought to have been heard a (plaintiff. THIS Exception of his mart firfl: b^ anfvver'd : But let any Honeft Marl judge, what grounds he could have for ("uch a Declinatory Plea, befides the crafty defign of prefcribing fuch a Form of Tryal, fo advantageous to himfelf, that he was fureto have none, or at moft but very few Profecutors, and withal to gain the Privi- lege of arraigning whom he pleas'd. To make this cafe more plain and intel^ ligible, I [hall here take the trouble of re-« peating thofe Arguments, he propo:i'd ih his own defence upon this occafion, Firft, He pleaded that his coming to Town w^as Voluntary, and on purpofe to treat with the Honourable Senate concern- ing the fame Bufinels he Was now indicted for. D Secondly, ^4 ^ ^^^v ^<^(^omt Secondly, He urg'd his being an Aflertor of the Sovereignty of God the Father, and a zealous Defender of the Truth of the Go- fpel againfl: falfe and Heterodox Expofi- tors. Thirdly, He pretended that he was not yet convided of any fuch erroneous Do- drines, [as were laid to his charge:] And Laftly, Thought it was very hard hefhould be bound to give in his Anfwer be- fore he knew who were to be his Accu- fers. In anfwer to which he was defir'd firft to confider his prefcnt Circumftances ; That he was under Confinement, and Prifoner to a Chriftian Magiftrate ; which was no proper Qualification for a Plaintifl^ but rather the Sign of an Offender. In the next place he was told, it was but juft and equitable for him in the quality of a Prifoner^ to hear firft the Charge that lay againft him, orthecaufes of his Con- finement, and then fairly to give in his Anfwers, and clear himfelf, if he defir'd to be releafed ; but that nothing could be more repugnant to the Pradife of all Courts, than for a Perfon in Chains to turn Profe- cutor. Firft, Firft, As for his pretence of coming thi- ther yoluntarily, that was thought to be ^a excufe not atal! material, fince Malefadors do by the juft Judgment of G-^d frequently of their own accord thrafl: themfelves into places mofi: dangerous and fatal ?o them. And though it be true, that he came vo- luntarily to Gaium^ yet being there ?ppre- hended, and for certain Rcafons committed to Prifon, he ftill continued a Pnfoner, and under that Quality it was, that he was con- veyed to Bern, Secondly, Equally impertinent were his vain Pretenfions of vindicating the Sove- reignty of God the Father, and of aflerting the Truth oftheGofpel ngainil: falfe Expofi- tors ; fmce v\e were not yrt fatisfied ot the legality of his Call. Nor could we give any credit to thofe extraordinary Horrours and unufual Convulnons he pretended to have twice felt, when at Prayers in Geneva ; as if he had been infiigated by the fecret Impul- ks of the Holy Ghoft to pronounce the Mi- nifters of that Church, Defenders of dua" ttrnity. Thirdly, As to his Errors and falie Dq« cSrines, we were of Opinion that he need- ed no farther Conviiiion, than his own abjuration of them at Geneva^ where he un- derwent publick Penance, when Sentences D % w^as was given againft him in the following words, (yU.) ^Tis the Judgment of the Ceurt^ that you Valeotinus Gentilis, undergo the following Pumfhmcnt, Firft, That jou fhall he fiript clofe to your Shirty then barefoot and bareheaded fhall carry in your hand a lighted Torch^ and leg God's Pardon and ours en your Knees^ ly conf effing your felf malic ioufly and wickedly to have fpread abroad a falfe and /heretical ^ DoElrine ; but that you do now from your heart detefi and abhor thofe abominable y Ly- ingy Blafphemoiis Books, you composed in its defence ; in Teflimony ivhereof you fhall cafl thtm with your own Hands into the Flames^ there to be burnt to Afhes ; and for mort am* pie fat is fa^ ion we do enjoy n you to be led. through all the Streets of this City, at the found of the Trumpet, and habited as before ; and do fir in ly command you not to depart this City without permiffion,^Z* Therefore feeing he had fo publickly con- demned the fame Doiirines which he now endeavoured to revive, and after fo finga- lar a manner done Pennance for them ; which yet he now endeavoured to revive, it would be abfurd to admit of their de- fence by fuch k faithlefs Ibuffling Advocate. Befides 0/^ Valentfnus Gcntilis. 57 Befides, he could not be ignorant what a grievous Perjury he had committed by' go- ing out of Geneva without permiffion, con- trary to the Oath he had once took ; tnis laft Charge was fo notorious, that he could give no other Anfwer, but that he was for-. ry for it. Fourthly, To the lafl Exception,of his not knowing who were to be his Accufers, our Anfwer waSjWe would i. Produce the fame Perfons who had formerly impleaded him, when he made his Recantation at Geneva, And 2. Thole who had banilh'd him with the reft of his Heretical Accomplices out of Po- land ; and if thefe were not enough, we had in ftore the Churches of Germany^ by whom his Opinions were condemned, as favouring of Ariamfm. A nd ^ Laftly, We had the "*" Deer eta of feveral ^A^mthofe Univerfities, whereby his Doi51:rine v/as i^Jii^''^'' exploded, andhimfeif by Name condemned ^jn their for an Heretick; particularly Alexander A- >"//'^^^^^.5'4. and/.i6i. That God the Father is in the Scriptures cail'd the only God ^ Invifible, moft High, and the God of Qirift or of the IVord In" carnate Again, p. 8z-. the Son is Subor- dinate {_Eff'enttatori\ to him that gave him Being ; and fo he makes the Father Ejfen- r iator ^and the Son Ejfentiatus ; and (by con- fcquence) 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 dopofitive- ly afTert, That the Eflence of God is but one fingle EfTence, not Subordinate (or ca? pable of Superiority and Inferiority J How- ever to bring himfelf clearly off here, he faith, that when he affirms, The Father is the One only God, this ought to be refer- red wholly to his Selj'e:o^u/©^, {of the fame Sul^ fiance'] toexprcfstbe Identity of Subftance in oppofition to the Blafphemies of Arius. And the Cxttdoi At hana(m5 in cxprefs terms tells us,We mufl conleis theFather,Son,and Holy Ghoft not to be Three Gods,but One God, neither confounding the Perfons, nor dividing the Subftance. And in this Tri- nity (faith he) none is afore or after other, none greater or lefs than another, but the whole Three Perfons are cocternal and co- equal ,• fo that in ail things a Trinity in Unity ^ and Unity in Trinity^ is to le wor- fhipped. By denying of this, Gent His hath been the occafion of introducing feveral dangerous and iofuffcrable Errours into the Church. CHAR ji ^rief Account CHAP. VIL Of thoje Words, Trinitas, *e y 2 i; a, Y n o' 2 T A z I X, ^^j^ ^hat they do properly figntf.e. N O W becau{e he quarrels with the word Trinity as us'd by us, and every where confounds ^^^ and tiT^s^^'5 Cufmg promifcuoufly the Words ^^oc^ Juh* Bant Li ^ effect ia^ perfona^ and hypofta/ii) we will therefore briefly explain their proper fignifications. For there is not an Arranter Piece of Sophiftry, than to ufa Words in a different fence from that, wherein they have ufoally been received and taken ? 'Tis true indeed, we ought not to be over Nice in our Expreffions, and wrangle about Words, when we are agreed as to the thing ^ but what madnefs Let Dr ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^'^^^ ^^^ Tenns^ and cry down the sheri and old without anj reajon or necelTity ? It is his Party [^ my Opinion equally advifeable to retain fnfaaoTy ^'^^ Language^ as well as to imitate the Anfwerto 3Iat2rj:rs of our wife Forefathers. this, if the, can. ^^^ Oj Valentinus GemiTis.' 49 But to come to the bufinefs : The Word Trinity in this Queftion does not fignifie an Abftraded Number, as when we fay in Latin ternio, (juaternio, [in Englifh three or four Units] but it denotes an uttdc^^.c^ fomething really exifting ; thence it is that the Trinity was caird t'7r?-^^/0^.©' I'ttoc^I/^, Conformably to which the Greek Fathers, Gregory Nazianzen^ St. Bajil^ Da- wafcen^ and alfo the Latins, do generally fpeak of the Trinity. And therefore Gen- ' tilts is much in the wrong, when he con- cludes, becaufe the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghoft God, and the Trinity likewife God, therefore there are four Perfons of the Godhead : and w hoever aflerts this, muft likewife afiert a Quater- nity, not a Trinity. We do abfolutely deny the confequence. For no body lays that the Trinity as rlifi'incl from^ and without the Perfons of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, is God ^ For the very * or that being of the Trinity [and of the Godhead ^'^'^^f^^; too] is in thefe three Perfons, and without^y^/,^'^^" them there can be neither Godhead, not/eif^ou^ff Eilence of the Godhead. But the true CDn- i^^^Z"^ fequence had been this, the Father is God,*[^^!j4,;^'^ tlie Son God, and the Holy Ghoft God, ^^^^^«^^-^ and fhefe three a|e One, therefcic there is 5,^'^-^^^J" in tne Godhead a.fnnuy ptPcrlons ; nor rwtQtkcr- by afterting of i\m do w.9 in 'any Wile fee «'/''• E ^p ^0 A ^nef Account up a new Gcd or Idol, But to proceed, the Word [7>/;?//y] was not without very good reafon brought into the Church. For the Bilhops aflembled with Athanafius Sit Alexandria [as we are told by Sozomen^ /. 6.(7.20. HiH. trip.'] to defend and efta- blilh the Decree of ih^Nicene Council con- cerning the confubftantiality of the Father, Son, and H. Ghoft, in oppofition to the turbulent Arians^ fix'd upon the Word Te/ac^ or Trinity, thereby intending to fignifie the three Perfons of the fame Sub- fiance, not dividing the Suhjlance^ nor confounding the Perfons. And ever fince the Word has been made ufe of by all Or- thodox Councils, as well as by the Greek and Latin Fathers. Nay, the Scripture it felf fpeaks to the very fame purpofe, John I. cap, J. There are Three that hear Record in Heaven^ the Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi, and thefe Three are One, And fo likewife in the Baptifm of Chrift, Mark I. Mat, 3. and in the Inftitution of Baptifm, Mat, 28. there is plain mention made of three Perfons- 'Tis therefore an impudent and a frontlefs ralh Cenfure, to call the Trinity a mcer Human Invention, utterly unknown to the Orthodox Creeds. The Nicene, Alexandrian^ and Ephejine Creeds, are all confeflcdly Orthodox, and yet all make ufe of the Word Trinity^ But uf Valentmus Gentilis. 51 Biit here he replies, they never acknow' ledgd the Trinity to he a God, I muft "^3 profels, I can't tell what he would be at with his Deus trinhas : If by it he under* ftands a fourth Perfon, it is one of his own making; and we mayjuftly explode both him and his fancy; and he well delerves the Name of Impious Libertine, that in a matter of fo great importance dares fly to thefe wicked Cavils ; but if by Deus Tri- n'itas he underftands Dem Trinus^ or a Trinity in the Godhead*, 'tis plain he has ^ Or ^ aflerted a notorious faKliood, fince we have ^':'"',^>'. already prov'd both Councils and Fathers ^q^I^ ** 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 Adverfary would fain father upon us the Notion of a DeusTrU fiitas^ diftind from, or without the Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Ghoii. But 'tis all perfed Calum.ny ; and God forbid the Church of Chrift ihould be ever guilty of fiich a Blafphcmous Pofition. I think it needlefs to dwell any longer upon the Ex- plication of the Word Trinitas^ fmce we have evidently demonllrated [whatever Valentinus vainly pretends to the contrary] that by a Trinity we underftand uTra^^iv, fomething real, of really fubfifting ; and that the Catholick Creeds have not been £ z unac- 5^ A urtej Mount unaccuftom'd to the Word. After the fame lewd manner he plays upon the Words ^ffi dogmatically to h ^ explained. Thus we not ex- plained by Self Conrcioufners4«^ Mutual Conrcioufnefs ? tvhich^ we are told^ makes tf Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, a plain, eafic, tf«^ Intelligible Nation, and Solves all difficulties dbout it. sLFw Trm, call of Valentinus Gentilis^ 5 % call God a Sulflance^ tho' in Propriety of Speech he cannot be [<:> Styl'd : for a Snl» Jlance IS capable of being Defined, but God is oLT^i^y^-KlQ-^ bound lefs, and not to be circumfcrib'd within any limits of Words. Therefore I think we ought to handle fuch a-Subjed, with the greateft humility and reverence, and to be extreamly cau- tious, how we make ufe of any cxpreflions, but fuch as are recciv'd, common, and moft applicable to it. ^Becaufe God is in the Scripture Styl'd ' ^v, as in thQH^hrQ"^ Jehovah from Eijehy fo in the like fignification from ^^^ is put to fignifie the Divine £^d';/cd'. It was indeed long controverted, whether this Word ought to have been rendred into Latin by EjfentU or SuljlantiA ; but the generality have thought Ejfent'm to be t!ie moft proper 'Tranflation, and therefore do by ^^c^-^ ex- E 3 prefi 54 A ^rtcf Account prefs the common Nature of the Godhead in the Trinity. 'Tis Hkewife the common Opinion of St. Au(im, lih. 7. de Trin. that it is more properly rendred by Effentia, But, fays he, whether you take it for Eflence, which is the proper^ or for Subftance, which is the corrupted Tranflation of the Word, it ftill denotes fomething Alfolute not Relative. So again, lih, j. de Trin. c, 8. I call that Eflence which the Greeks term ^^^ ; and prefently after, t^&^ utt^^- !«?> i. e. One Effence^ but three Suhfiften- ces. And in the fame Book, cap, x. Efl i amen fine duhit at ione fuhfl ant ia^ veljiwe- Ijus hcec appeSetur ejfcntia^ quam Grceci >i(AcLv vacant. St. Jerom in fome places re- tains the Word Vfia^ as in bis Book againft Lucifer, In others he Tranflates it by Suhjtantia^ as in his Epiftle to Dawafus, Suficiet (fays he) Kobis dicere unamfuhjtan- tiam., tres per] ones [uhjijlentes per fellas^ cec^uales'^ coosternas. In the fame place he renders it Efentia^ as Deus effentia: nomen ■ vere tenet ^ and again, Nomen ejfentia fihi vendicat proprie Dem^ As to the Word Hypofiafis in Profane Authors, it fignified the fame that ^^'oc does ; witnefs St. Jerom in his Epillle to Damafus, And Socrat. in 6. lih,c. xi.Hifi. Tripartit, tells us out of Irentem Gramma- ticusy uj Taientinus oentilis. 55 thus^ ^ that the more Modern Philofophers took if^(^ and uttdVs-.'^ to exprefs the fame thing, and this fignification it retained amongft the Divines too for fome time. Socrates m2kesufQ of it, FoL 179. /xwSva/, "feo^- That he was not of a different Hy- poflafis or Subftance, but the fame with the Father. But at that time a Perfon was caird i^'TToc^fi; as in the fame Author, //^. i. r. 23. Another while vJvrael/^ and viris^o-/; were taken for Synonymous terms, as in that paflage of Socrates, c^uTres^TciTe, k, ivv- T£/'aiv VTTJS^'^J^fnv Uvea o^jtuAoySvTtc, i.e. Con- feffiog the Son to bq an Hypoftafis and fuhfefitng in God, and that there is one God in three Perfons or Subfiftences. At lad they did upon very good grounds limit the fignification of i/Trosixai^ to Perfon only, and U7rxs<:>ccnc and '^pj^^i^v became equivalent terms, as in Latin perjona ^ [uhpftentia ; fo that a Subftance with [per- ibnal] Properties was call'd utt's^ch^. Jn the time of St. Jerom the Coqtroverfie about this Word was ftill on foot, which makes him call it a Novel expreffion ; and there- fore feeing fome calfd fubftance Hypofta- fis 5 and others were us'd to fay three Hy- poftafes, /. €. Three Perfons, He asks Da- E 4 mafiis^ 56f A DYief Account tnafiis his Advice what to do in the bufinefs. Sijuleas (izys he) non timelo tres iJ7ni?c^o"B; dkere. And 'tis plain from the H'lfl, Tripar, that the Fathers were very cautious in theufing of thefe expreffions, and feldom did it, un- lefs in a cafe of great neceffity. Upon this account it was that the Bi- fnops ailembled with Athanafius did in- duftrioufly let fall the Difpute about ^«"^ and uTT^s^ois-j refolving to make ufe of thofe Words only againft Salellhis ,• and were therefore concerned left that for want of Words ^^'^ or Sqbftance, and U7rcsi5i(n^ or Subfiftence, might be miftaken one for the other, Riffims fays the famp, lih. lo. r. 29. . . At prefent fome Tranflate ioiot by Sub- ilance, and iJTrojaoi; by Subfiftence ; others more fjgnificantly term « Church, and at the fame time to condemn ^'//^J the Ccnfeflion of the Nicene Council ' equally ex- But we have already fliewn how ^^^^^^^'^^^ Word v/as taken up in oppofition to Sa- hellhcs ; And tho' our Author would fain be thought an indifferent Perfon between Jrius and Sahellius, yet he feems moft to efpoufe theCaufeof Arms, CHAP. 8 A ^nrtef Accoum CHAP. VIII. Wl)at n^as the Opinion of Arius, and l^herein Gentilis and he do agree. BUT fince it is yet difputed by many, what was the Herefie of Arms ; it will therefore be worth our while briefly to enquire into his Opinions. Efpecially^ fince matters are now come to fuch a pafs^,. that Men dare openly avouch, That he w^s| not Condemn'd for allowing the Father on- ly to he God^ but rather for aflerting the Son of God to be a mere Creature. Here are then two Propofitions, (Viz?) Firft, That the Son of God n^as a Crea^^ iure. Arius aflerted this, hx^iiGemilis doth, not. Secondly, That the Father alone is the. One Mojl High God^ who dwells in Light in- accejfible. This Gentilis does affirm, but Arius feems not to have Aflerted it- Gen* tills takes a great deal of pains in ftating the difference between thefe two Pofidons, to avoid (ifpofSble) falling in with y^rius. However of Valentinus Gentilis. 5gi However if his AfTertion be true, and it belongs only to the Father to beityrd the O^e only God^ I cannot for my part fee any reafon why he and Arius fhould keep at fuch a diftance. For according to Qentilk he would have faid nothing but truth, fee- ing he was never cali'd in queftion by the Fathers, for calling Chrift the Son of God t, fince that AfTertion of his was true and un- doubtedly Orthodox. But if the difference be only in Words, and the fenfe of both Propofitions. be the fame, there needs no proof, that they agree in their Notions. To make this appear, ' let us enquire in what rhanner Arius his Opinion has been deliver'd down to us- We find in Theodor. L i. cap, 4. Alexander Bifliop oi Alexandria making complaint, that jf^rius and Achilles denied the Divinity of Chrift. His Words are thefe, tmv eea-, Tcrov &vca Ji^^do-^'^ic^ i, e. Denying the Divi- nity of our Saviour, and making him of the fame Nature with all other Men ; and prefently after, Tkey attrilute to him (^ays he} a Temporal Beginning. For thus fpeaks \^ritis himfclf. *hv ttot?, In i^ mv v,h t5 €)e», if ylydviv u^^v, tt^ots^v ^i uttcc^^ ^v, toiStQ^ yivofjucv©-' org k^ nrz-n jd.yom'^ hov Kj TraV/v Uvea 'TricpvK^ ave^^Tni/^. -nccvloc ;^, cj)«wv, 0£o<; t| isy, ovTcov imncnv^ cmvocvocKecfj.'- oe A !Bnef Account v^MCi ;^ T i^ov tS ©eS, i. e. T/jere was a time when the Son of God was not^ &c. His Opi- nion is related after the fame manner, Hifl. trip. lib. I. cap. 13. Deus^ fay they, non femper Pater fuit^ non femper juit Deiver- hum^ fed f Hit ^ (Itiando Deus non Pater fuit^ Dei ant em verhur/i ex non exiftentihusfacium fuit^ &c. i. e, God was not always a Fa- ther, nor did the Word always exift, but there was a time, when God was not a Father, and the Word was made out of nothing. To the fame purpofe Nicephorus^ III, 8. cap, 8. Deus non femper Pater erat^ fed erat cum Deus Pater non erat, Non fern- per igitur Dei verhura eratj fed ex non ex* ifientilus faclum eH* Qm'i cnim erat DeuSy ilium ^ qui non erat^ ex non exiflente fee it ^ &c. You may fee more to this purpofe in the fame Book, lih, 8. c. 18. From all which it does appear, that Arius did in the firft place divide the Eflence of God, making one Eflence of the Father, and another of the Son, and after that aflign- ing only a temporal Original to the Son ; and therefore he fo earnePily condemn'd the o>oiffiov, that he might carry his Point for the Separation of Effence, And deny'd the co-eternity of the Son, that he might . thereby eflablifli the Notion of his tempo- - ral Original. From hence followM more iBon* Of Valentinus Gentilis. C \ monftrous Abfurdities, viz. That the Son of God was a mere Creatnre ; and that he was made out of nothings For they were very well fatisfied, that the EflenceofGod be- ing the moft fimple, and withal the mofl: perfeSofany, could admit of no gradual divifion, and therefore they aflign'd the Son a feparate Effence. And now 'tis eafie to difcover, wherein be and Gentilis agree. Arius faid, That there was One Eflence or Subftance of the Father, and another of the Son : Gentilis diftinguidieth the Father from the Son not only in Perfon orHypoftafis^but in Effence or Suhflance alfo. Nor doth it at all alter the cafe, in that he faith, The Word was begotten of the Suhflance of the Father ; and is confulflantid with him : In which, ^tis confefs'd, he differs from Arius^ but never thelefs introduces ^feparation of Sul* fiance. Arius then fays, Ihe Son was made out of nothing : This Man tells us he was not made out of nothing, but out of the Suhflance oj the Father, But in this they both agree. That \jmoad effentiar,{\ as to his Suljlance the Son is Numerically di- ftin^ from the Father. We are told by Niceph, lih, 1 8. r. 47 , 48. that Philoponus a famous Fhilofopher drove on the fame Ar- gument. For hy dividing the Indivifdle Nature ofGod^hto more FerfvnsJ^e afcntd it 6i A ^rief Account h to them fever ally ^ as to Individuahy and diflrihuted it to thofe three Suhfijlences of a SHperfubjiantial Nature. He was likewife a great Champion of the MonophyfiteSy\fv\iQj by reafon there was but one Hypoflafis or Perfon in Chrift, aflerted that he had but one 4^u^^> or Nature alfo, which was made of both the Divine and Humane, as on the contrary Nejlorius from the two Na- tures of Chrift concluded, that he likewife muft ncceffarily have two Hypoftafes or Perfons. Again, Arius averted, That the Father,, only was Eternal^ but that the Word had a leginn'tyig ; vv hich likewife was theO pin ion. of the Philofophers Philoponus and Themi- ftius ; fee Niceph, Ith. i8, c. 5:0. Gent His tells us, The Son of God was he gotten hy a precedent a£l of Generation j which if true, then muft his being begot- ten have fucceeded in order of time. To prove this he doth with his ufual confidence quote that paflage of lertnlUan. No.i idto Pater & judex femper^ quia Deus femper, islam nee Pater potuit effe ante filium^ nee. judex ante delitlum, Fuit autem tempus cum ei deli^lum^ & filius non fuit^ i. e. God is not therefore always a Father and a Judge, becaufe he always was God. For he could not be a Father before he had a Son, neither could he be a Judge, before there 61/ Valeminus Gencilis. 6^ there was a Criminal. But there was a time, when neither Criminal nor Son did exift. In this Opinion he agrees with /if/-- ^ tuiiian^ and' by confequence is a Partizan of Arius, For it fignifies not a farthing, from whom this Sentence is quoted, whe- ther from Tertull'ian or any body elfe, fince it's plain it gives us the true Sentiments of Arius, From what has been faid, it appears, That Arius and he are of the fame Opini- on in thefe two particulars, (yiz^ 1. In dividing the Subftanceor Eflence of the Godhead. And 2. In making the ACt of Generation in order of time antecedent to the Exiftence of the Son, which exactly agrees with the h 07? i;t?v q{ Arius. CHAP. 64 ^ ^rlef Mcount CHAP. IX. CofKermng the Generation of the Son of God, ani how l^e ought to underjiand the Words rewfifo^ and 'Ayewp;!©-. IN the next place Gehtilis appeals to thofo Texts of Scripture, wherein the Gene- ration of the Son of God is reveal'd to us, as John I. iVe faw his Glory y the Glory as of the only Begotten of God ; and PfaL 2» Thou art my Son^ this day have I legotten thee ; which place is cited by St. Paul^ Atl.iy and the Apoftle i Heh,^, Then Gentilis farther concludes, That Begotten is therefore diftinguifli'd from Unbegotten, becaufe the^one hath always a beginning, the other hath none. Again, that the Fa- ther is therefore caird 'ingenitu$ [Unbegot- ten] becaufe he derives his Original from none ; but all things had their Beings from him. But the Son is therefore faid to be Begotten, becaufe he had his beginning from the Father ; upon which account the Father is ftyl'd the Ejfentiator Beings and the Son the EiJentiated Spirit. This Uf Valentinus Oentihs. 65. This is his way of Arguing ; and,I think, any one, that has but half an Eye, may plainly fee how Arius his Argument lies couch*d under it. For whofoever hath read Nicephonis^ The odor et^ and the other Ecclefiaftical Writers, cannot be igaorant^ that this was the very Argument Arim and his Followers made ufe of. In Anfwer to which, we freely allowand acknowledge the Generation of the Son of God, and readily grant that the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten; but moreover weaflert that this Generation was without beginning of Time, and is of fuch a Nature, as tranfcends the Capacities and Apprehenfions of all Mortal Men. For the Word was in the Be- ginning, and all things were made by him j which Word is afterwards call'd the Only begotten Son of God. Of the fame Word the Prophet fpeaks, when he fays, The dew of thy hirth is of the worn I of the Morn' i;/^ • which pailage the Jews themfeivesr confefs to have been fpoken with refpedt to the Eternil Generation of the Meffias. Therefore Gentilis his Argument is by no means conclufive ,• This way of Generation being wholly inexplicable, and without any beginning of Time ; by confequence there is no prim nor poHerius^ no lucceffion ia it, but tlie whole coeternal together. F Ho\Ar 46 ^ ^^'^^/ Accmnt How audacious then is the Mind of Man, that dares pry into and endeavour to explain thefe hidden things of God ? If neither Ear hath heard, nor Eye feen, nei- ther hath it enter'd into the Heart of Man to conceive thofe things, which God hath prepared for them that love him, How much more ought that My fiery of the Eter- nal Son of God, and that of his Eternal Generation, rather to be ador'd than fa- thom'd ? Bat let us fee, how the Ancients exprefs'd their thoughts about this matter^ Theodoret^ \n Book 4. caf. i. tells us, y\M i>;ov, i. e. That God did not beget his Son in time, nor after a certain feafon or period : and in the fame place he calls it u/oT?f^ a//ir(X7rT6)T©-, an Immutable Filiation;^ Again heconfefles, the Son of God was be-^' gotten, but it was a^'^'wTO^j (xvek^^mj^to^, (xmTaAwTrTcc^, a7ne^)/^;7r7(i)^, in an unfpeak- able, inexpreffible, inconceiveable, unde- terminable manner, by which words it plainly appears, tliat the Ancients look'd upon this as a very great unfathomable Myftery. They did likewife call it yimm ^^'•«(?X':3, thereby to fhew that his Gene- ration was without beginning, as may be feen in Damafcene and in Theodorety in the place above cited. And Socrates in his i . /. c» 8, has a pafT^ge importing the very fame thing. of Valentinus Gentilis. 67 thing. 'tS t^ott^, fays hc> ^ y^vv^.^a^ TT/Jn^voiT©^, i. if. By a mode of Generation inexpreflible and unconceiveable by any created Nature. From all which I think we may well conclude, the Manner of the Gehtration of the Son of God to be truly ineffable, incomprehenfible, and undeter- minable. 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 w^as any time, wherein the Son was not. As for any other ways of explaining this Generation, the Catholick Church, and all Chriiiian Wri- ters, Juflhi Martyr^ Iren^us^ and others have conftantly rejeited and exploded thi^m. A few of which I iliall jurt glance upon. Some would have the Son to QQkQnd from the Father >:3V^e'^^;t^>, by divifion ;J''l''^-^'^' This feems to have been the Opinion ot * ' PhilofopherSjWho parted the Divine Eflence into fei'eral Pcrfons ; jufi as if cut of the fame Mifs of Gold you v*^culd cleave two or three Bars, or as you Vvould divide any one toU'^m irlto two or three parts. S/c iv dicitur ^i^i^^ii^iyov bg BtJo. Others were for having it to be k^^' ir(^.';hoKliVj u e, by Gcrminationj as we fee Scions bud out from Trees. F 2 Others 68 A ^rief Account; Others thought it might be H^ ^'tuo-iv, by efflux or emanation, as Children arc naturally begotten of their Parents. Others call'd it jc^t' ip\jyiv (^/.^ .)by erufta* tion, as may be feen fron> Arius his Epiftle in TheoJ. /.I.e. 6. And laftly there were others, who believ'd it to be >w:TaMoiWii', or by alteration of Subftance. ScQSocr. Bock I.e. 6. All thefe ways were rejeded by Antiqui- ty, and the Jrians too, tho' for a different reafon ; namely, that they might hereby explode the o>oio-/ov, or Confulftanttality. Of which fee Nkephor.L%. c. i8. Their Argument ran thus ; The Son of God is not born of the Father, neither y{^ h^ej-^- yJiv, nor K^' TT^ShoMv^ nor >iV^^y(^iv, nor %oS"i^vyUvj nor yet Jcoct aMoI^icr/v, ErgohQ^ is not ci^oiei©-^ or of the fame Subftance with the Father, becaufewhat isfuch, muft be fo fome of thefe ways. To which weAnfwer, That thereis ano- ther v/ay or method, which they have part over, and which alone the Catholick Church hath approved of ; that is, K^ ^ovm' , or by Immanence ^ or elfe hV '^ivcoviocv, {^y Ccmmunkat/on of his whole Nature to the Son, who is therefore c>o^(n©-, Cofijulftan' tlal with the Father. And to manileft the coeternity, the Fathers ftill call'd it Hk^(^ and a)t^TaAH7rT© , unfpeakable, and incon> prehenfible. Which of Valentinus Gentilis. 6^ Which Phrafes are certainly moft An- cient, fince we find them in Jujlin Martyr [an Author immediately after the firft Cen- tury], who frequently condemns and re- futes thofe other expreflions, j^^t' a7roTo/y^;;', 5^.^ 7«vv!'j[o^ proper to the Son, provided the E^ f; T"^^ ^^oxAs be taken in their due fence. C'bf^-vit, And therefore,to avoid all miii^^kes about them, let it be obfcrv'd, that Firfi, x-^vv^^.©^ doth fignln? one that bath no manner of original at a!i ; >^vvy;oc denotes him that is begotten of a Father. In this fence tuc Father alone [in himrdf] is faid to beunbe- gotten aylwAQ^^ bccaufe there is not any tiling fromi whence he derives his Original ; and in the fame manner the Son may be faid to be T^^^vvi^icc, in as much as he was be- gotten by the Father after ^n ineffable man- ner ; and in this fence thefe terms may very well be applied without any abHirdity; we may fafely call as v/ell Father as the Holy Ghoft i^x^'".v©^, fince neither of them had a Father; and the Son only y^'^^^Uy as being begotten of the Father. Second- ly, ''^yl'J^{^i^^ or rather ^Ay^iJywT©^, niay iignifie tlie feme with ^^"''^O", i. e, not Creaicd. In this fence the Philofo- pncrs call the Elements ^y^'y^cc, becaufe vliey are the firft 4^riFK:ipies ; and in the 'lame m^anner the Creator is diftinguifh'd from Of Valentmus Gcntilis. 71 from his Creatures ; he is aj^inT©^, and they are (lyl'd >^vhT/- nity ; as when St. John fays, the V/erdvoas with God^ where 'tis plain he means the Father. So sgain, when Chrift upon the Crofs cries our, My God^ My God^ v/ty hajl thou forfaken me ? He direfted that Invo- cation to the Father, Mat* zj. Bat St. John exprefly fays of the Son, And the Wc-dwas God, After the fame manner ?a, Thomas fpeaking of the Son, calls him, My God^ and my Lord. Job. 20. & in Ads j. St. Fe- ter faitl) to Ananias^ Thou haji not lied tin' to Meny hut unto Gody i.e. to the Holy Gbq/r. At other times the Scriptures freak of God abfoluteiy, ® fecundum ejfentiam^ whereby we are to underfland the whole Godhead, from which none of the Perfons Of Valentmus Gentilis. 7j is excluded, yr as it comprehends all three Perfons'] as Job. 4. God is a Spirit, We are God's Labourers, We are God's Hus- bandry, We are God's Building, i Cor. 5. The ivifdom of the World is joolifljnejs with God, With what God ? With the Father only cxclufive of the Son? No^ No. The Word [God'\ is here, as in many other pla- ces, taken eflentially, as it belongs to all three Perfons. But all this fignifies nothing with Genti- lis^ who will have the Scripture every where to fpeak of God diftindily, and there- fore mufi of neceffity exclude Chrift from the Unity of the Divine Eflence, and Pro- priety of the Godhead ; and laftly, make him of later Exigence than the Father. But this is not all ; his Prefumption and Arro- gance carries him farther, to make two di- llinit forts 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 fuffer for the Glory and Sove- raignty of the Father, 'Tis certainly a grievous Errour, to think of Worfhipping or Honouring the Father, and to negled: the Son ; yet a greater to exclude t!ie Son from, this Honour .• but the mofl grievous of all, to pretend to Honour the Father by degrading and diflioncuring the Son. For God ^6 \A ^r\ef Account God is to be Worfliipp'd in the manner, as he has manifefted himfelf ,• but he has plain- ly told us, Joh. y. That he ivho honour eth not the SoH^ honoureth not the Father : And ^oh. II. the Father hears mtnefs from heaven^ that He is glorified in the Son. Wherefore let us keep to this certain perpe- tual 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 Sor^^no honour can be accepta- ble unto God the Father. Such fubtile de- lufions doth the Devil make ufe of, to over- throw the Glory of Chrift, under the fpe- cious pretext of vindicating the Soveraign- ty of the Father ; a Service, which God ne- x^er requir'd, either from the Prophets, Apoftles, or any other Holy Men of Old. But 'tis plain, this method of honouring the Father tends to the difgrace and diflio- nour of Chrift ; and, that with a very little more xxoyMtfientilh may reconcile himfelf with both 'Jews and Turks. CHAR of Valentinus Gentilis- 7 7 CHAP. XL (ontaining the Judgmmt and Conjent of Scripture with refpeB to this Jrti^ cle. THefe falfc Dodrlnes of Gentilis have ever been ccndemn'd by theuniver- fal confent both of Scripture and the true Church ; which confent is plainly and in Ihort, as follows, vh. ThtEJfeffceoiGod is but Ofte, in which one Eflcnce the Scrip- ture fets forth to us three Hypojiafes or Sulfi(lences^ to wit, Q{\X\t Father^ of the Sony and of the Holy Ghoft ; fo that we ac- knowledge neither three Gods, nor any divifion * of the Eflence [of God.] The ^ Son and the Holy Ghoft arefoConfubftan- muU^H^ tial with the Father, that they with him cation. are One, true, eternal, infinite God. Nor is the appellation or title of the One mofl high God proper only to the Father exclu- five of the Son and Holy Ghofl. This, I fay, is the Judgment and Confent of the Scripture 78 Ji !Brief Jccomt Scripture and the true Church. For God ^ to be Worfliipp'd irt the fame manner, that "he hath reveal'd himfclf, and fo the Church hath always Worfliipp'd him ; but he hath declared hirafelf to be One, i. e. a Being in Suhflance or >^M One^ fubfifting by himfelf. Eternal, Wife, Good, ®c. but hath ma- nifeiled himfelf in three Perfons or Hy- poftafes. That his Eflence is but One, will appear from many plain Teftimonies, as i Dent. 6. Hear^ Ifrael^ the Lord thy God is one God. I Cor. 8. We know that there is lut one God, Eph. 4. There is one God. Deut. 4. The Lord t Jehovah] he is God^ And there is none elfe hefides him. Therefore he hath declared himfelf to be but One. But that He hath likewife reveal'd himfelf as fubfifting in three Perfons, is plain from Mark i. and Mat, 3. where,! n the Baptifm of Chrifl, the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft are expredy mention'd • And fo likewife in the Inflitu- tion of Baptifm, Mat,\%. Mark 16, Nor can we be put ofT by that evafion oiGenti- I/Sy whereby he refers all this only to the Agreement and Confent of the Perfons. We do not deny that there is fuch a Confent of ^-^"^^f Will ,• * but we fay,that befides this,there is Confdouf- ^" U^i^y^^f Eflence. Wherefore this Do- ners too. (Strine doth remain more firm and unfliaken, than a Rock of Marble ; namely, That God has Vf Valentinus Oentuis. 7p has declar'd himfelf to be One in EflencCj^ fubfifting in three Perfons ; fo that a Trini- ty in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, is to be Worlhipped. And this is the only true way of Worfhipping God. And in this fence the Church hath ftiU Interpreted the Scripture and the Apoftles Creed. / Believe in Godj ivho is One ; that is to fay, t5i isaU in Effence ; where prefently after is added, by way of Explica- tion, an enumeration of all the Perfons, that it might appear, who that One Gcd Almighty was ^ namely, the Father^ Son^ and Holy GUji. Confequentiy Gent His his Ejcpofition mufl be falfe, who makes this diftindion ; lie* lieve in God the Father^ and reftrains the Word God to the Father only. I lay this is a Sophiftical Expoficion arifmg from a miftaken diftindtion. Neither have the Nicene^ nor Athanajian Creeds, or any of the Orthodox, ever uq- derftood it in this fence. Wherefore the Son and H. Ghoft are the true aed one God with Gcd the Father, and are fo fet forth to us in Scripture, as often as men- tion is made of the One true God, Jehovah^ or Lord of IfraeL Mark lo. Chrift faith to the Rich Young Man, l^one is Good fave God only \ where if we admit Gentilis his Opinion to be true, the the Argument muft run thus; None isgoodi lut one that is God ; but the Father only is the only God, therefore the Father only is GoeJ. For Chrift fpeaks exclufively, ^hy ca/Iefl thou me good ? 'ou^i; a>oceo^, & /um u^ 6 Qiog, One God, is the proper appellation only of the Father ; Therefore the Father only is Good, Nor will he be ever able to extricate himfelf out of this Labyrinth, unlefs he doth affirm, that Chrift may be faid to be good alfo by Communication, but the Fa- ther only to be properly and originally Good; which is intolerable Blafphemy, for it diftinguiilieth Chrift from his Goodnefs, as well as from his Divinity. But the true way of Arguing v/ould have been thus : He -that is properly and of him- felf, good, muft neceflarily be the one true, and only God ; (^which we gather from Chrift's own Words, None is good lut the One God?) But the Son and H. Ghoft are pioperly znd per fe 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 good- nefs, and hold it at his Pleafure, All the Cavils about the Father alone s being the one Only God do wholly vanifli, and are difpelfd by this one Argument. Befides this, there are feveral other Teftimonies to be be found in the Scripture ; as in Ifuiah 44, The Qyie GorHs faid to be ilitfrfl and the Lift; which Noble Charader Ge^tiliswn- derftands to have been given only to the Father, but he is confuted by St. Johr?^ who ReveL r. 21,1^. gives the very fame Ti- tles to Chrift,- from Whence we may con- clude, That Chrifl: is alfo comprehended under thisCharadier of xhtOneGod, Nor fhall we ever be convinc'd of the contrary, from his faying, That Chrifl: was Cilfd the /r/? and the lafi only in refpcft of the Creatures. Again, the /Vord in the New Teftament is cali'd not a ficlitlous^ but a true God^ Joh. i. But there is but One true God^ the Author both of the Old and New Covenant, therefore the Word is com- prehended under the Charadler of the One God^ w^ho is the Author of the Covenant. Again, this One and Only God iscali'd the Jrue and O^ly Savjoiir^ If 4^. ii. But if • we believe Gentilk^ the Word in the New Teflament is not the One and Only Gcd^ by confcqucace, neither will the Word be our Saviour, wliich is not only falfe, but blafphemous alfo. For Joh, i^ Andrew fays, We have found the Meftias [fpeaking of Chrifl: or tlie Word.] Therciore the Mi- nor, which was of GentHii\ making, is falfe. G Agaia, ^2 /I DfliiJ /lUUHHl Again, There is no otherGod \_Elohim'i befides the Lord ijebovafj] but the Word aiah^^. (according to Gentilis) is not that One On- ly Lord {Jehovalj^ therefore he is not the xxuQElohtm or God: which conclufion is abominably abfurd, and by confcquence fo is that Propofition alfo of Gentilis^ from whence it follows. Lallly, The Word is in the New Tefta- ment call d a Creator^ Colof, i. Job. i. but that is a Propriety of the only One God, therefore the Name of the one Only God belongs to the Son alfo. From thefe and the like places of Holy Scripture, it's eafie to demonftrate how abfurd and how impious a Dodrine it is to afiert, That, the Father only [exclufive of the Son] iscall'd the One Only God ; fee- ing, on the contrary, it has been theconftant Faith of the Church, That the Father, Son, ; and Holy Ghoft, are that One, True, and Only God revea]*d to us in the Scriptures ; I fay. One God i^'^, or in Effence fubfifting in three Peribns. Nor need we trouble our felves with that Soveraignty of Divine Ef- fence or ioT^^c, fince in the Trinity there is a perfeft equality, none is greater or lefs than [none is afore or after] another. Vniis & i^em Deus Pater (S Aoy©^ ejus femper affiJiens hiimuno generi ; as fays Iremeus^ iih. 4. c. 47, But V[ Valentinus Uentilis. 85 But that Soveraignty, which vveoppofe and deny, introduceth an inequality of prhis & pofterius^ of majm & mhnis^ or of Order and Majefty in the Divine EfTence, and therefore is juftly exploded. In the mean time we are not ignorant, how Chrift in refpecft of his Human Nature.and his Office of Mediator, is inferior to the Father, and is alfo fo ftyrd in Holy Scrip- ture. But this is nothing to t!ie purpofe, fince the inequality, we expofe, is not in thePerfons, but the ElTence of the Deity, G 2 CHAP, 1^4 JL LJf kv§ iivtviTrvp CHAP. XIL Containing Gentilis his Cenfure of the Fathers and their Writings. WE have now Ihewn our Docftrine of the Trinity to be agreeable to the fence of ScripturCjand the Orthodox Creeds. We have made it plain, how Gf;;///ij by new and forc*d Expofitions doth wrefl: the meaning of Scripture to eftabhih his No- tions, and with like improbity doth Ex- pound the Creeds alfo. For not daring to i deny the Authority of the Apoflles Creed^ he hath by a wrongpundation falfly Inter- preted it, he fafely defpifes and rejeds the other Creeds, and treats the Fathers with the fame relped:. He upbraids Atbanafnis with corrupting the Nicene Creed^ and blufhes not to call Athanaftus his own Creed mere impertinent Jargon, pag. 90. Sr. Au- gujlin he calls a Dogmatical Pedant, and others of them he belpatters with a great many of Valentinus Gentilis. ^ 5 many more fuch Complements. But how- ever, left he fliould feem to have no part of Antiquity on liis fide, he flies to all the Ancients, and ^ right or wrong hales them *^^j^^ "^ in to vouch for him. But his principal h^sSuccef- Friends are Ju§iin Martyr ^ Igyiatms^ Ter-for Dr. tuUian. Irenaus and Hilary. Yet he hatli ^^^^f^^ck - ' . / 1 . t tntendi to not lo great a veneration tor them neither, do in the but he can upon occafion defpife, reject j^<^^^««f^'^ and difcard them alfo ; fo that upon thcy^'^/^^^^^^^^^^^ whole, he feems to claim nothing as his oftbeFa- peculiar Talent, fo much as that excellent ^^/^Y-^^'^^ qualification which the Greeks call s^i-^^- tfikilhy- ucirxv^^y^x, a Subtile Craftinefs to didm" J^othejh of guifli his Caufe, by wrefting the Law. intnitf ^ Wherefore we will now demonftrateand Minds m maintain our Doitrine out of thofe very ^leBieiftd Fathers h^ admits fop Authentick ; where- *'"^-^y* by it may eafity be obferved, how craftily he does abufe both their Authority and judgments [inorder toihe Eftablifhinghis . own Opinion ] G ? C H A P. 86 A ^riej Account CHAP. xni. Containing the Judgment 0/ Juftin, J^^r* tyr and Thilofopher. JTJHin Martyr, an Excellent Writer, and who liv'd near the Times of the Apoflles, is very Orthodox, as to the Article of the Trinity^ unlefs it be when his Words are malicioufiy wrcfted to the new way of Ex- pounding Scripture. For the better under- ftanding therefore of this Father, we mufl obferve that bis Writings were ccmpos'd upon different occafions. In his Difpu- ting with Trypho the Jew, he was to prove againft the jews, that bcfides God the Fa- tlier, (whom the Jews acknowledge to have been the Creator of all things) there is another Perfon, namely, the Son of God, who is alfo the true God. Nor in this doth ^ he at all divide the Saljlance^ or Ejfcocc, but diilinguiihes betwixt the Perfons or Sublicences [uvro^cire^O. Thxfe palligcs ' are abus'd !)y QentiUs^ to eftabUili his No- tion tion of a dzfiin^ Effence, But.that tin's was never the Mind cH^uJlin^ will appear from his other Writings againfl: tiie Geiitiles^ where he refojutely maintains, that there are not many, but One God. Which any, that have carefully read this Author, muft i neceflarily know to be true. It appears then, that JuH'in took upon him to prove thefe two Propofitions : |f Firft, Againft the Gentiles^ that there ' was but One God, and mt many^ as the Heathens did vainly imagine : And, Seccndl)% That this God, who was but One in Effence^ did yet Subfift in three Perfons. That the True, Eternal God is but One, he proves from their own Poets and Philo- fophers, [the (jf/z/i/^'j being ignorant of the Scriptures] and particularly cites that Verfe out Oi Orphem : ^Ei^ W (XUTOj/^VH^, hoc, i;iyova WvTa TiTL'i'^^c^:. And farther, to fiiew that the Son was comprehended within the V^'ny of the Godhead^ he brings another Verfe cut of the ^'o^v.oi of the fame Poet, viz, e 4 And 8 6 A nnq /iccomi And elegantly interprets the ^^^ there mention'd to be the ^^y©'? Word [or So^i] of God. From whence he concludes that thofe Ancient Pofets did defign to Inftruct us in theknowledgeof theOne God. Now if it be pYO\/'dout oi Orpheus, th^it he own'd but one Only God, notwithftanding that hefpealcsof the ^^-^'to/^VH^ and «^^^ as two diftinQ; Perlbns, it will then follow that this ocv\oy^\'ii<; and ocv^ are the One and On- ly God. And however Gentilis may wreft the Author's words, contrary to his mean- ing, it: is plain, that this Epithet, namely^ the One Only Gcd, belongs to the Son. For, as I now faid, he IJuJlh] does according to Qrpheiis, infer the aufoj^vii^ and <^'^^' from this Propriety. Befides, the fame Jujl in Martyr ^o^stX' prefly affirm of the Son, 077 auTo? STig^^ f.Lo- Nothing can be more plainly faid of the Divinity oFthe Son of God. For [fays he] he was not barely calTd Angel ^nd Lord, But he himfelf only is faid to be the Angel and to be CW. What is become then of that Propriety of the Father, whereby he is call'd the One Only God, feeing you are here told that the Xo)/©' or Son is fM^'^'Or €)^^^, /. e, the Only God ? Again, when God fays, t>^'d/,uo&', lam tjjat / a7n I JuHin gives ws the reafon of this vj vaitintinustjeQ.tilis. this expreffion, namely, That he did not fay this with refpe£l to the Son, as if he would fo diftinguifh him from himfelf, but in contradiction to thofe who are not Gods ; from whence it follow^ that the Son is not excluded from the Selfexijlent Deity : But this was faid, that Men might know that they did formerly ferve not thofe which were, but thofe which were not Gods. As to th^Vfordo^^^^oicco^oLv^Q^ioTng^j^fi^^ tells us the Word auTd^ \s to be underftood of the true God. 'h ^, faith he, auTo? a'JI'cuvu/xJa Tov Qv^ag oiToc cv.ixalm eeov. For fays he, the Pronoun, ^<^oc^ denotes or ex- preiTes the true and very God^ Therefore this makes nothing for the feparation of the Father and the Son. For he prefently after calls the Son a;)^'e^s©- Aoy©- eeS, the In- feparable Word of God. How then dare we be fo bold as to make him diflincl in Ejfence from the Father > Nay, make them two dijiin^ Numerical Effences^ and fo too as that the one ftould be propagated by the other } It is certainly a very impudent piece of prefumption, amidft fuch an Univer lal Confent, tor us nicely to pry into thefe Divine Myfteries, which fo vaflly tranfcend our weak Capacities : Wherefore Jaf/i^i very admirably clofes this Subjed: with that Wife Saying of Mercurius^ eib ro^s-oc.: ^^y, Lc! pO A brief Account Let us nextconfider his Dialogue againft Tryphon the Jew, that fo we may fee how pertinently Gentilis does from thence prove his <5>uT?5i(nov or fecond Eflence ; of which, 'tis certain, Jujlin never fo much as dream'd. We muft know then, that Trypho acknow- ledge One God, the Creator of Heaven and Earthy but did not allow the Son and Holy Ghofl: to be God- Wherefore it lay upon Juflin to prove, that the Ady©^ eed^ was true God^ who afTum'd unto himfelf Human Nature, made after the Image of God. Upon this Account it is, that he of- ten fays, Thdittbe Word was true God^which afTum'd unto himfelf Human Nature ; and therefore that the Name of God did belong to another [viz. to the Son] befides the Father ; that fo both might be One God, feeing Trypho himfelf affirm'd, that there could not be more Gods. Wherefore Juftift does diredly oppofe the Opinion of Ge^itZ'^ lisy but not fo as to make two Numerical Divine Effemes, and to change thecV^ieno'/ into an o>o/iOTov. His Words are thefe, t£v oA6)v ; /. e. There is another befides the Creator of the Vniverfe^ who both is, and is calfd G(?^and Lord, Again, 2'^®" o ^^ Of Valentinus Gentilis. 9 1 i yv6b}Ayf^ i, e. This God, v^'ho is faid anid recorded to have appear'd to AhrahxK^?^ Jacoby and Mofes^ is another from hifrn, who made all things, in Number, I menn, but Qot in Mind. Thus he makes two Numerically diffe- rent Hypoftafes in one Eflence. ButCV/^- tilisy either through Ignorance of the Greek Tongue, or out of his own malicious Defign, has miftaken this place, by think- ing that Jiijl'in did here call the Dwine Uy©^ another God. Jujiin himfclf 6Xj)lains his meaning in feveral other places ; v^^here fpeakins of the Son, he fays, ©^^^ Ka\eiToof, itj oeo; 'tit, ii} tV.', /. e. He is call'd Goci, and both is, and will be God. Nay, farther hs plainly calls him c^u7o6£©-, God of himfclf. For Expounding that place in Exodiis-^. concerning the Angel of the Lord tliat ap- pear'd in the Burning Bufh, he fays, That this Angel was the Divine '^h^-> and pre- fently after has thefe Words, ^^ej,ov ociHv ovT«, ilj o^-oi' m^.(jlvc^v 4* avfdv Atyef, /, ^. Xhe Scripture calls him This very 5ei;;^,thereby denoting that he is Lord and God, Froai which expreffions it evidently follows, that the Son is auTcSs©-. For in tho firft place it calls him the Angel of the Lord and; Mrnlfler cf God, but immediately after ftyles the very fame '^^h©^-> ^ZJ-G- ^^^^^ and OvOiccuTc-:, Jhe Lord hhnfelf^ and God himlelf. gz A ^rief Account himfelf. Therefore the Angel which ap- pear'd unto Mo[eSy is in Juftins Opinion ^.iTc9'c®-, God of himfelf. Let us next fee, what way Juflin firppo- ft|K the Son to have been Begotten, God, fayr> he, did from all Eternity beget of him- felf a certain rational energy or operation {Um[ix^ Koyim2 which is call'd the Glory of the Lordy the Son^ the Wifdom^ the An^ gel^ God^ Lord^ and "Koy©- or the Word, But then this ^G>©-, fays he, isnotfuchan one as we fee propagated by us. For we At/^V7r^]2jaMmTE^Ad''j^v'j/^vv2/A^v, by uttering of a word do make it ; which yet is not of our own Subftance, but im^isi<^ [of ano- ther Nature] ; but the Uy©- begotten of God is c>i(ji©- [of the fame Subftance]. And to the fame purpofc he fays afterwards, that the ^oy©" begotten of the Father ^va^ia Kj p,)& 'r^™ TTOcni^ 7r^, and to y^vvdjuayov tS jtvvSv- r& af^e^^ e-n^o'v Iq, i. e. The TFor^^ or that which was Be^otte^fy is Numerically diftindl from him that did beget him, h» muft be underflood with refpcd: to the number of F^r/i7;?j, not oiEffe^ces^ for they are indeed two Perfons. And if we do not underftand Jujlin with refpeft to the Per- fons, we fhall make him contradid himfelf, who fo often urges the [Effentia]] Unity of the Father and the Son. Nay, he would (ay the fame with Ariiis^ who made ufe of this Argument to prove the ^^?"^^^v between the Father and tfie Son, becaufe he that did beget was One, and he that was 'qcgot- ten was another. Therefore he that was legotten differs from him that did hge.\^nd that in Number too ; but yet in number Ferfonal ^4 ^ ®^^7 Aaomt ^ Perjoml not Sulflantial; that is- to fay; they differ in Sulfidence^ not in Sul^ance cr Ejfence. The lame Father in his Apology to the Roman Senate, has j:hefe words, -r ^ ^ttd oiywmT>^ 3y oc^^yiT^ oeS Koyov /U^tdc' tov 0eov tt^- ^©^ ylyoviVy oTTtog ^ t£v ttocSSv t£v m/V' OT/ifUTOx^ ^voV-tv©^ , )y V^.oTV 7roiti(TOTca. PT^ TVor/kip (fays he) G^^, [viz. t/je Fa- ikei'\ the >^h^ or Word legotten ly the Eternal and heffahle God^ and love hm^ who was made Man for our fakes ^ that heing mack partaker of our Paffmis and Infirmi- ties he might alfo heal them. In which wolds he diftinguiflies betv/een the Perfons of the Father and the Son, and fhews that the Office of Mediator, the Myftery of the Incarnation, and the Redemption of Man- kind, which is the true ^^<^^^y belong pro- perly to the Son. Then he ihew5, what form of Invocation the Chriftians did ufe, which was unknov*^n to the Romans ; name- ly. That they call'd upon or Pray'd to the Father in the Name of the Son, by whofe Merits they receiv'd Redemption. All th^k palTages GentHis wrefts to another fence, and utterly rejefts all the reft of his Writings ; but efpecially his '^'^^^^-^ ^cr-(^(;^ i.e. His Expofiticn of the Faith, where there is exprefs mention made of a Trinity. For T7J — V a,lCULUIUS sjcnuiib. p J For citing the place of St. Paul, Ephef,%. In whom you alfo are huilded together for an halitation of God through the Spirit, Jtiflin adds, X£/^v eedv ^ nveu/tioc thv /x(av GeoTr^Ta KocTOiM.ei'v gV m^Tv Kar tve^-ytfocv ; 7?;^^ God^ Chrift, and the J-joly Ghofl, one Godhead^ did by their energy or operations dwell in us. And prefently after ^m\y^l^imc, m/jIv -nJ ^'^'(^, i. e. There is one Name delivered down unto us, which jointly agrees to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. And again, he exprefly mentions and proves to' ^ i{nag TRx Jfo'v^ That is, the Samenefs or Identity of Effence, Again, In the Trinity^ fays he, ive underfland an Vnity, and in the Vnity we acknowledge a Trinity, And again, We have delivered to you the Dodrine of one Godhead in three perfect Sulfiflences^ &c. Now thefe and the like paflages being fo very plain, that it was impoffible to elude their force, G^;¥//7ijhaschofen rather to de- ny this whole Treatife, viz. the^'^-^t'^^Tr/- ^^^) than change his Judgment. And therefore 'twill be needlefs to produce any more Quotations, fince, I think, it fully appears, from what we have faid, what was the Judgment of Juflin Martyr the Philo- fopher in this particular. CHAP. (4 X^l 9VI 5TT-FUTfn CHAP. XIV. (^ontahiin^ thS Judgment of St. Igna- tius. s ^T. Ignatiui was Contemporary with Polycarp, and Difciple to St. Joh}i^ as is evident from Eujehius in his Chronico'/i. St. 'jerom fays that he wrote feveral Epiilles, and reckons fomc of them. Yet it is cer- tain, that feveral Spurious Pieces have been attributed to him. However, I (hall not now Difpute their Authority ; but fuppo- fing, with Gentilis^ that they are all Ge- nuine, let us fee how far they do counte- nance his Opinion. Centilis endeavours to prove from thefe Epiftles, that the Son is in Eff'ertce d\{imGt from the Father ; or, to ufe his own expref* ^rhe r«tf ^^^"' ^'•^^^ they are two * Eterml Spirits Trithetfti- dtjl'in^ in Numerical Ejfence. We, on the caiDia- contrary affirm, That St. Ignatius never {o '^^^- much as Dream'd of any fuch thing, but Taughc f U.1.H111,&LIUIJ VU UIILXliLFV taught that the Aoy©^, or Word, was one and the fame God with the father, yet fo, that they are in themfelves pcrfonally di- ftind. In his Epidle to the Mag^efiavs he fays, th^t the A(/y(^ v\^as not a Pronounced, but a Suhfiantial Word, And for what he fays a little after, that he is an ^o"''^ r^vvnT^i, a he-^ gotten Suhjlance^ tho it muft be confefs'd that this is an harfh expreiiion, yet on the contrary it plainly appears, that he there meant nothing elfe by i^'^? but that which doth really fuhfiji^ \, e. an uTra^J/^ ; a Sub- fiflent Being; to which he oppofes a vocal Jmnd^ which prefently vaniihes; In the fame EpilUe he lays of the Sen, that he declar'd the One and Only tmeGcd to be his Father ; and fpcaldng of the Do- drine of our Lord, that he reveal'd to the World the true God his Father. But what s all this toadiftinilion of Ejfence ? In his Epiftle to the Tivf€?tfes he fays, that the Aoy©- 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 Herefie of the FatripaJJians^ who did thus confound the Perfons. In his Epiilie to the ThiUfplam^ he cites this place out of tlie i Cor, 8. There is hat one God {Father'\ o[ all things j and prefent- H ly yr ly after, There is hut cy?e God and Father ; not two or ihrec, one who is [and there is no other befides him J the only true God. But afterwards he adds, by way of Expli- cation, therefore there are not three Fat hers ^ nor three Sons^ nor three Holy Ghojlsy hut ene Father^ and one Son^ and one Holy Ghojl; and proves this Trinity from the Inftitution of Baptifm, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft ; not into any one that had three Names, nor yet in- to three that were made Men, but into three of the fame Majefty ; for there is one only who was made Man, neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghoft, but only the Son ; who was not lo by eftimation, or in appearance only ,but in truth and reality ; for the Word was made Flefli and dwelt there- in .• So that here St. Ignatius does plainly oppofe the Tatrtpaffians^ and fiich like He- rcticks, but does not in the leaft favour [or patronize] Genttlls his Notion. In the very fame Epiftle dilputmg againft the F^- tripaffians^ he writes thus : And again, How doth it appear unto you^ that Chrijt was not Born of the Virgin Mary, hut that it •was he [d'e Fat he} wh is God ahove a/I^ and Almighty c Who then was it that fent him ? Tell me who i^vas he that rul'd over him ? Whom did he obey^ or whoje Law did he fulfill ? Tou^ who would have him yield to Of Valentinus Gentilis. 9p io HO ones Command or Power^ Jo feparate Chrijl from him that legat him ; yon make the Vnhegotten to have been Begotten^ and him that was without Beginning to have heen nailed to the Crofs, Which is all faid by him in direct: oppofition to the FatripaJJJ^ ans or Sahellians, in the fame Epiftle, he brings in Chrift difputing againfl: the Devil : I know ^ fays he, and have known One only God^ vJjom I do not rtjtife to Ohey^ hut thou hafl proild I an Apoftate and Rebel to him ; for I am not I air/Oec^, i.e. contrary to God^ but I acknorv- ledge his Soveraignty^ and do not refuje to Worfhip him^ whom I know to have been the Author a}2d Lord of my Nativity y and only Preferver ; for I live in and through the Father, 8cc, But thefe are the Words of Chrift Incarnate, who owns himfelf in re- fped: of his Humanity, to be inferior to the Father. For if thefe Words were to be un- derilood with refpeit to the Divine Nature, how could Chrift be faid to live propter Fa- irem^ or rather [F^r.] feeing he [as God] is Sslf-exiftent^ or hath life in himfelf and power to lay it down. In his Epkftle to the Thiladelphians, he Exhorts them to Union, and draws his Ar- guments from the Unity of the F!e(h and Blood of Chrift, Irom the Myftical Union - of the Bread and Wine; and hkewife from H X the 100 A \priej Account the Unity of the Father and the Son. His words are thefe: Becauje there is one Father Vnhegotten^ and one only Begotten Son^ God the Word and Man, and one Holy Ghojl, thei Spirit of Truth ; alfo one Gofpel, one Faith^ one Eaptifm^ and one Church. By which words he only urges them to Unity and Concord in the Cliurch. Hence he makes this conclufion, Therefore it behoov'd them as a chofen Pc:ople, a Royal Prieflhood, and an Holy Nation, to be perfedled in Love and Concord. To the fame purpofe is what he fays in this Epiftle againfl Ehion^ who made Chnll a meer Man, and therefore he fliews, That Chrift was God begotten of the Father; which contains no abfurdity in it, unlefs violently w relied [by a faithjefs Expofition,] In his Epifiie to Poly carp : Here, fays he, is the Race, here the Crown, wait for Chrifi the Son of God, who is ^X€i^©" ^v XC01&, without Time, and yet Born in Time. Thus Damafctne^ and others, call the-^ygr'^Xei^^'©-. Ignatius adds, That as God he was Impafiible, [not capable of Sufiering] J3ut that as Man he wasPaffible, and oid IuiTct for our fakes. And what can Gentilis fay againfl this? Will he fay, that Chnfl, as God, did hiffer ? And that the ^o>©", as fuch, had properly Flefti and Blood ^ 6t. Ignatius is ot another mind, and Oj Yalentinxis Genrilis. loi and dath plainly and Orthodoxely diftin- guifli the two Natures under {or in] rheone Perfon of Chrift. The one of which, naniely, tht Divine^ is properly and /^r y^ Impaifible; but the other, viz, the Himan^ is properly Paffible. Gentilis confounds thefe Proprieties of the two Natures, and affirms that the Ao^©- had himfelfall thefe AfFedions. Chrift, indeed, has properly Flefli and Bones, and Blood, being truly and properly Incarnate. But the Aoy©-, or Divine ISIature in Chriil, lias no fuch properly in it felf. In his Epiftle to the Antiochians he fays, That we ought not to deny Chrift under pretence of aflerting One God^ and brings feverai Teftimonies out of Scripture, as Deut. 6. IfaL^^. Gen. i.Sc 17. which do all fpeak of OaeGod, and at the fame time exprefs different Perfons ; as when Mofes faith, The Lord rauid \fire and hrimflone^ from the Lord \ and yet in other places faith, There is hut One God, w^hich Unity doth not exclude the Son and Holy Gliofl ; whom he, on the contrary, includes with the Father in the Unity of theGodncad. vSo that a Trinity of Perfons dorh not at all interfere with the Unitv of Edence. And at the end of that Epillle, he truly diftinguilhes the Properties of the Perfons. May he proted and defend you (fays he) H 3 vvhq TD2 ji \Drtej /iccomi who is the Only unbegotten God, [fpeak- ing of the Father] through him who was begotten before all Ages, i. e. Through the . Son, whofe property it is to be begotten. But here Gentilis objcds the laft claufe of this Epiftle, viz. Valete Deo & Chrijlo^ as if thefe were different, and the Father alone was caird Gotl^ but Chrift Domnus or Lord, fo as to be excluded from the communion or fellowihip of the only God. In his Epiftle to the Ephefians^ he com- mends them ior being one Body, and adds this Argument for their Union .* for, fays he, there is one Lord, one Faith, one Bap- tifm, one God and Father of us all. But it is not Jgnatims Opinion, that the Father was the Only one God ; no more doth it appear from the following fentence of his, Medkus mfter ejl Solus verus Deus, Deus ingenttus. For if thefe Epithets were to be underftood of the Father only, the Son would not then be our Phyfician : But St.Jgmtzus difiinguifhes the Perfons here only by their Proprieties ; for a little after he calls Chrift our Phyfician, impaflible in a paffible Body. CHAP. Vf vaientmu^ Xjctitilis. foj CHAP. XV. Qncernhtg the Judgment of Tertul- lian. TErtuUian^ without doubt, is to be read with a great deal of caution, as (Senttlis himfelf confefles ; and therefore it is the eafier for him either to pafs by and re- jedl his Authority, as he pleafes, or elfe to extol and commend it, as occafion ferves. . But Tertulliany as in many other places, fo particularly in his Book againft Praxeas is very Orthodox, where he exprefiy fays [of the Perfons in the Trinity] that nume- rum fine divifionepatiuntur ; They allow of number without divifion : And afterwards, Vhiq\ teneo unamfuhflantiam in trilus cohce^ rentilus ; 1 do always acknowledge one Subftance in the Three thus united. Qcn- tills fays, that in thefe and the like places Td-r/^/Z/tf « fpoke waveringly, and will have them refer to Montanus his Paraclete ; wbich,notwith(landing all this,are very Or- thodox. But on the contrary, we fay that Xertullian'^^vci^ Hermogenes did not only H 4 fpeak 104 A lirief Jccount fpeak doubtfully, but did adually make ufe of the Phrafesand Expreffions oiArius ; when he fays, There was a time when the Son of God WAS not ; which faying muftof neceffity be extreamly well lik'd by Gent'f liSy as that which doth make the Son pojie^ rzor to the Father in the order of the God- head. But it is plainly 2.nArian expreflion, thefame with the ^v o-n is]^ hv, which we have already mentioned out of Nkephorus^ lib, 8. cap. 8. But tertuUian doth often recolledl: him- felf, and not only makes ufe of proper ex- preffions, but feems likewife to be Ortho- dox enough in his Notions, as in the fame Treatife againft Hermogenes he fays, Divi- nitas gr actum tion hahet utpote unica ; The Divinity or Godhead can admit of no de- greesj as being but one. Thefe and the like paflages do fuiEcient- ly demonftrate, that TertMian acknow- ledged no reparation, no divifion in the Godhead ; but yer,in refped of the different Perfons, he did allow of a Numerical di- flindion. And thus much we thought fit to take out oiJuHin Martyr^ Ignatius and Tertul- lian ; thefe being the Fathers to whom Gentilis lays fo great a claim, as if they were wholly Patrons of his Opinion. I fliall not concern my felf much with any of Of Valentinus Gentilis. 1 05 of the others, fince the Opinions of -ttV^/^ and Irencem are too well known, to give any one juft occafion to fufped, that they were favourers of this Peftilcntiai Error j and thofe pafFages Gentilis quotes out of them are anfwer'd by the Authors them- felves. Nor fliali I at prefent bring any Quotations out of the many other bothi Greek and Latin Writers, fince Gentilis re- jeds all their Authorities. CHAP, Too ^ Driej Account CHAP. XVL Concerning the other Fathers^ efpecklly St. Auftin. GE^tilis then, without any diftindion, rejeds all other both Greek and La- tin v\riters, and who cannot but wonder at the daring confidence of fuch a Fellow > *And at Here we have a cenforious '^ Upftart,who like ^havefucT another ^rijlarchusy boldly arraigns and another a- Condemns all Antiquity, unlefs they will mon^lus. acknowledge Three Eternal difttntl Spirits ^^ in the Divine OEconomy ; and all the three hundred and eighteen Fathers aflem- bled in the Nkene Council, muft be herded amongft the Hereticks, becaufe they con- fefs'd but One God Eternal, He prefers Ariiis before them all,^ would he but have admitted the term oVoio-/©-, as newly ex- plained by himfelf. But I will not oppofe him with fallible Human Authority, feeing we may eafily confute this Blafphemous Er- ror out of the Scripture it felf. And Arius^ whofe r c/; vaiennnusuentiiis. 107 I whofe wicked Spirit feems now to revive i in, or to reft upon this Monfter of Iniquity, j was condemn d of Old, and confuted not by Human Authority, but from the Holy Scriptures and Ccnfent of the Church^ My defign being Hiftorically to make it appear, that this wicked Man has fet up a new In- terpretation of Holy Scripture, and to gain his Point the eafier, has, without any mo- dcfty or civility, taken liberty to rail at and calumniate, not only the Fathers, but like- wife all the Orthodox Councils. However, he ought either to have fub- mittcd to fuch approv'd Authorsi and to the Confent of the Church, or elfe to have confuted them out of the Word of God. This he does not, but cites fome few places of Scripture, upon which he puts a new Interpretation ; and when we deny this to be the true meaning of them, and aflert, That the Church of God did never underftand thofe places in fuch a manner^ and for proof of it appeal to all the Authen- tick Writers both amongfl the Greeks and Latins, he cries out. That we are a parcel of Dogmatical Pedants and Hereticks, and prefently flies over to Artus^ and the Bi- Ihops, which follow'd him, as if there were abetter Interpretation of Scripture amongft them, than there is in Athanafim, and thofe who approv'd of his Confeflion of Faithc 1 OS j% 'J^rtef jfccomt Faith. He treats Sr. AuHin in a very fcur- rilous manner, no ways deferv'd by fo ex- cellent a Writer. He charges him, as well as us, with holding a Qnatermty^ a Notion « he never was fo Phantaftick as to dream of. | He ftyles that Reverend Father an Enthu- Jiaflkk Writer, a Mcigtdan^ and a Sofhiflcr^ fuch calumnies as he never receiv'd at the hands of his moft Mortal Enemies. The Trinity in Zfnity^ and Unity in Trinity^ he calls an Imaginary Beings an Ens rationis^ \ and St. Aujiins Goddefs^ which is down- right abominable Blafphemy. And notwith- ilandingall this, cur crafty Scribler, to re- concile himfelf to St. Aufi in, and wipe off the Odium fuch rude cxpreffions muft ne- ceflarily bring upon him, at laft gravely pronounces this Oracular faying, That he believes^ were St, Auftin now alive ^ and could enjoy hut this clear light of the Gofpely he would y with his owp^ hands y threw his Books of the Trinity into the Flames, A thing very likely indeed ! that St. Aufiin ftou'd take Example from this vile Man, and Perjure himfelf as he hath done. But of this enough. CHAP. C?/ Valentinus Oentiiis. 109 C H A P. XVIL Concerning the Communication of jittri" butes^ or Proprieties. TH E Scripture fpeaking of the Son of God, doth attribute that to one ot his Natures, which dcih properly belong to the other, as Job, 3. No cne hath afcend* ed up into heaven^ hut the Son of ryian, who is in heaven. Chrift, indeed, as he was the Son of Man, could not then be in Hea- ven when hefpoke thefe words, nor did ho take his Fleih from Heaven. But all this is proper to the Divine Nature only, and may be truly affirm'd of whole Chrifi^ by rea- fon of the Perfonal Union of the Word with Man. By a like form of Speech we fa)', that God fu^er d and died for ui^ which are very improper expreffions, [if llridly taken] fmce God cannot properly be fald to fuffer or to dje ; and therefore we ufe to add, by way oi Explication, that it was in Came nffur/jpta, in the Fkfti that he aflum'd. This 1 1 o A -Brief Jccomt This way of fpeaking the Ancients call'd Commmkatio ld'0matum^ or the Commu- nication of Properties ; others call'd it , aMoi6)(r/c, Damafcene ftylcs it n^-^©^ av7i-| ^(nc^^-^ asifwc rtiouldiay, byway of Ex-1 change, or Mutual diftribution, whereby! we attribute that to the Human Nature, \ which is proper to the Divine, as to be in Heaven before the Incarnation ; or when, contrariwife, that is attributed to the Di- vine Nature, which is proper only to the Human, as to Dye and to Suffer ; or elfe we affirm that of the whole Perfon, which is truly and properly faid, becaufe Chrift in his Human Nature did dye, tho not in his Divine* Nor is this way of fpeaking in any wife improper or abfurd : For don't we, in re- fpedl of us Mortals, upon the very fame account fay, That fuch a Man is dead, tho this cannot be properly faid of the whole Man ; for Man is Mortal only in refped: of hisBo/^/y^ his 6*^/^/is Immortal, andfurvives after Death. Yet becaufe the Union of Soul and BoJy is that which makes the Man one, hence it is that we aiBrm that of the whole Man, which only agrees to one part of him. So we fay of Chrift, that he Suf- fer J and is Dead ; which properly do not at all beloiig to the Divinity, but agree to Chrift as he is Man, who is withal the fame God,and one and the fame Chrift. Here Here Gentilis cries out, That we divide Chrift, and make a reparation in him, and yet allows that there are fome properties, which agree to the ^orJ only, before he took our Nature upon him. Such is that, John ^, No one hath afcendcdup into heaven^ hut he that came Jown from heaven^ the Son of man ivhkh is in heaven^ &c. And John 8, Before Ahraham ivas, I am. And Heh. i. By whom alfo he made the fVorlds. Now if, as Gentilis grants, thefe exprefiions can on- ly agree to the Word before he was made Flefl7^ I think it is plain, that they are im- properly attributed to the Human Nature^ and by confequence, we rightly explain them by a Communication of Properties [or Idioms]. And that we do not divide Chrift, nor make or maintain here any Separation, is clear from the Dodrine of our Church,' wherein we do plainly acknowledge two Natures in Chrift, and yet without any confufion of the Natures, the Perfonal Union making one and the fame Chrift,the Son of God and the Bleffed Virgin. Wc likewife diftinguifli the Natures by their Properties, but do not divide or feparate them, and by this means preferve whole and entire all the OiEces of the Perfon of Chrift. Wc We fay it is proper to the Human Nature to Weep, to be Hungry, to Sleep, to Suffer, to Dye, to be circumfcribed in a Place, &c. On the other hand it is proper to the Di- j vine Nature, to be impaffiWe, to make the I Worlds,to be with the Ffther from all Eter- ) nity, before Abraham was, ®r. We fay that the Offices of Chrift are to redeem Mankind, to intercede for them, to govern his Church, and whatever elfe may be faid to belong to Chrift, either as Prophet^ Priefl^ or King. Now Gentilis being able to deny nothing of all this, 'tis clear, that he quarrels with the plaineftexprefTions meerly out of heat and defire of Contention ; and doth there- fore unjuftly Style this Orthodox Dodlrine, fuch ^ impertinent Trifles as deferve to be hifs'd out of the Church ; which he hath not only done in his Epiftle Dedicatory to the King of Poland^ but hath alfo, without any juft or fufficient reafon, malicioufly ca- lumniated the fame in the ixth Book of his Antidotes. But there is yet at the bottom of all this, fomethingftill moremonfiroufly Heretical ; for he often affirms, that the K6y(Q^ had truly and properly Flefh and rf" Blood, that the K6y(^ was truly and pro- perly Nail'd to theCrofs ; and that the fame Aoy©- did properly Suffer. Now had this been faid of Chrift, it had been without < Contro- Controverfie true ; but fince Aoy©^ doth fignifie only the Divine Nature in Chrift, which is united to the Human Nature in the Perfon of Chrift, he muft neceflarily think, that either' a Spirit hath Flefli and Bones, which our Saviour himfelf hath pofitively dcny'd, or elfe that the ^^>®"2i;^fi«c^/";?^ rated J or rather turn d into fie jh ; or as the Monophyfues did affirm, both the Natures were made into one ; unlefs he will confefs with us, that 'tis an irqproper way of fpeak- ing to fay that the Aoy©- did Suffer or Dye; whereby that is attributed to the Divine Nature, which is proper only to the Hu- man, by reafon of the Hypoftatick union of both Natures in Chrift, which is what we call Communkatio Idiomatum, ti.'mA - C H A P. CHAP. xvni. Containing fome of Gcntilis's Notorious ^Blafphemies. ANothcr remarkable Inftance of this Man's Impiety, may be taken from that fcurrilous, impudent, blafphemous Language he hath fo freely beftow'd upon this moft Sacred Myftery ; a Myftery, that we ought rather in humiUty to adore^ than nicely to pry into. It muft be confefs'd, that even good Men do fometimes difagrce in their Explication of Things, and are not always of the fame mind in their Interpre- tations of Scripture ; but yet they do it without railing, without opprobrious Lan- guage, and much more do they abftain from the blacker Crimes of Irreligion and Blafphemy. 'Tis no good fign of a Reli- gious difpofition, to fcandalize and befpat- ter the Subjed in difpute ; and yet how- ever, Gentilis has been fo liberal of his Railery, that had he rak'd even Hell it felf, he could not have met with naore dirty . noifome J C»AVl.«b'AA»4»« >wfWA.AWXAAwr» noifome ExpreiTicns, nor more Qffenfive to any Judicious Perfon. He (licks not to call x\\t Trinity ^n Idol ; ^ag, 62I the Towr cf Bahel; a Net^ Liol, which we ^- ^^^ have erected above the Father ; a Triper/o- ^- ^• >/ate Mock'Ood ; a Diabolical^ Fi^itious ^ '^' PerfoH ; a Fitlitious Propriety and Sophijli-^ cal Perfon in a iS^(fn^ G6?oi(3-/ov, Perfon, Efence, ^^^^O'^'l^ck^rT Trinity^ mherely all the Holy MyHeries of feEiiy Religion ivere overturn d^ and the know- ^g^^^^ ledge of the Erernal God, with his Son, J^f/^f 4^- and HolyGhoft, was quite loft. In this/^'mow. ' charge he was led on by Gregoriiis Paulm^ who calls thefe twoPhrafes, viz. The One Ejfence of God, and One God in three PerfoHs the Inventions and cunning Contrivance of the Devil. But however, fi.nce the Phrafes thefe Men endeavour to explode, have been the conftant Language of theChurch, I think it needs no other demonftration, to prove that Gentilib is not only Profane in his Expreffions, but makes ufealfo of Diabolical Stratagems [to over- throw the Eftablifli'd Dodrine] of the Church. But the laft and moft plaufible Argu- ment, which they ufe, is this : Gentilis complains to King Sigifmun'U tliat Luther^ 'Zviingl'ms and Bucer^ were wholly taken up in dcmoUfliing the Outworks of Amicbr'jji ; and thaC, amongft {0 many thoufand Re- formers, only Pkil'ip had attempted any thing in this Glorious Undertaking ; and that too fo indkcdly, that he fcem'd rather I 3 tq A ^rief Accoiknt to threaten its ruin, than to have given it any deadly wound. To the fame purpofe Gregorius Paulus fays, That God began by Ltitker to demolifh the Church of Antkhrifl at the Roof, not at the Foundation, left the noifome ftench of the Ruins fliould have ftifled them. Andall this is, becaufethey left theDo£irine of the Trinity unattacked ; therefore they are faid by them to have be- gun at the Outworks, and the Roof, not at the principal Fore and Foundation of ^>. tichrifl. Thus thefe Witty Gentlemen are pleas'd to fport amongft themfelves. Yet, after all, it is certain, that their quarrelling with thefe Words is only to find fome means to efcape ; snd therefore it is, that they fall fo foul upon theBlefled Labours of thofe Good Men. 1 hen they interpret every thing as they pleafe, and take the liberty of condemning whatever makes againfi: them ; and hence it is, that they endeavour to refine and new model the Language and Expreflions of the Church, which being a task far above their weak abilities, [rather than feem to beNonpIuft] they defpitefully fcatter fuch horrid Ex- preffions and bitter Calumnies, as no good Chriftian can hear without horrour and ailoniihment. His Book to the King of Poland is fraught with fuch Elegancies and Ornaments Ornaments as thcfe, and his common Difcourfe was wont to be fet off with the like Embellilhments ; fo that he feems to pleafe himfelf, and hopes to raife his Repu- tation by this means^ I 4 CHAP, CHAP. XIX. Of the yik Scandals he hathfalfly. thro1i>n upon the Doflrine of our Qhurch. CI Enttlis is very dextrous in Forging J[ of falfe Accufations, for he unjuft- ly Charges our Church with feveral Crimes lie will never be able to prove againft her ; as Firft, That we do Impudently deny Chriji to have been the Son of God. Secondly, That we have unadvifedly brought a new God into the Chriftian Re- ligion. Thirdly, That we affirm that God did not b-eget his Son of his own Subftance. If Cardinal Ctdfarms faid any fuch thing, let him look to it, the Reform'd, or Evan- gelick Churches, are not bound to Anfwer lor his Errors,/ Fourthly, Vj ^ aiLUUimS ULllLlll!.. TTT Fourthly, That we made a Triple God contrary to the Authority of the Scriptures, Abundance more of fuch fort of Stuff is contain'd in \\is Antidotes ; all which I here induftrioufly avoid. For what good Man can hear with patience fuch a Rafcally Fel- low thus fawcily abufing and undermining the Chriflian Religion ? Hence it is, that he gives us the Titles oWppofers of God; Judaizing Hereticks ; and as bad as Turks ; and pafles the fame Complements upon the Churches oi Savoy aifo, which yet he acknowledges to be the raoft Uncorrupted, and beft Reform'd, of any he knev/. He compares us with the Turks and Jews for denying (as he fays) with Mahomet^ that God did heget his Son. But who can fay that he ever heard amongfl us, That we devis'd another God Superior to the Father of Chrift ? Who amongil: us ever taught or affirm'd any fuch thing? Hence he took that fpecious pretence of a Quatemity^ a thing that was never feen or heard of,much lefs Worihipp'd in our Church. He accounts our Faith to be meer Sophiftry, and our felves Novices and Sophifters ,• yet gives no reafon for it. Thus this Crafty Fellow comically fports with us; but the true icafon is, b?caufe \ve deny his Three Eter- nal I XI ^ Drtef Account fjal Spirits J and do fay, mth Athaf^afius, There is One Eternal^ One Almighty ; but that the Three Perfons are three u^p/s^^aeva or u7it)ST)C(5iE/;, i. e. Only three Suljifiences, And when we fay, Deus eji TrinuSy or there is a trinity in the Godhead^ he darts up as if he were Mad, and cries out. That we make the Trinity a Fourth God ; as if we aflerted any Deus Jrinitas befides, or with- out the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. But this is certainly too grofs and palpable a Calumrty, for we own the Trinity only to relate to thefe Three Perfons ; and befides, or without them, there is neither Gody nor Trinity. Of the fame (train is his Calumny of our defending an unknown God^ Superior to the Father of Chrift ; and making three Chrifts out of one. We acknowledge and defend the God, that was known and reveal'd to ottr Fathers, but do fet up no unknown God. We know there is but one Chrift, in whom two Na- tures do confpire to make one Pcrfon 5 and therefore we judge it to be Impious and Heretical, to fay there are three Chrifts [or that Chrift is Tergeminus.'] But that Scandal is of a blacker Dye, of our dividing Chrift, and transforming him into another, which is not the Son of the Living God. Let this Blafphemer fliew us any other Chrift befides that Son of God, and Of Valentinus Gentilis. 115 and let him make it out, where, and how, we do divide Chrift. Of the fame Nature are thofe Impoftures he charges us with, of Conjuring up a new Chrift the Son of a new Relation, and then deceitfully belie- ving 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\ Impoftures. We conftantly afTert, without any deceit, [or fraud] three Perfons in the Godhead ; nor do we divide the Subftance, but do diftinguilh between the Perfons. He hits us in the teeth with '^ Salelliamfm^ whilft we do morejuftly *Dr,sher- charge him with the Blafphemy of Urms. Jp^k'^ ^^- The Doitrine of our Church doth plainly c^L^ provCj that there is nothing in it agreeing ufonfuch with Sahellius ; whereas he bluflhcs not jj^fg'^-, openly to defend Arius, and to prefer him ftind in- before all the Fathers of the Nicene Coun- finite cil. And however cautious he nwy feem S*, ^ to be, in his keeping the middle way be- the Trim- tween Arius and Sahe/Iius^ yet I am per- ^y- fwaded his Opinions are as bad as either of theirs. CHAP. I 24 A 'nnej Account CHAP. XX. 6f the Qheats and ImpoflureSy whereby he endeayou/d to impofe upon good {well'meaning) People. IN O W come to the laft Chapter (or laft Head of his Accufation) wherein I ihal I make it appear, by what fly Artifices Gentilis endeavoured to impofe upon [or cheat] every one he had to do with. For, indeed, hehasihewn himfelfto be exactly fuch an one as the Poet has Comically de- fcribM Mercun^ '^^ a>oi0oV is* \'mv\)[jxcu;> mK- KoL<; 'i^iv ; one that had got an excellent knack of changing his Narne. Firft then, he prefix'd to the Confeflioq he Publifli'd, a forgd Preface^ under the Name oiTheopbilus the Printer to the Sons of the Church. This hecomposM himfelf, and wrote it with his own hand, wherein he extravagantly commends to the Reader ^he vaft treafure contain'd in thart little Book ^ uf V aiencinusAjentifisJ 1 2 j Book ; a Book, fays he, fo Excellent, that it were to be wifliM all Churches might have the happinefs to enjoy the ufe of it. And, the better to fet off his unmerchanta- ble Ware, he makes as if the Printer were vaftly defircus of having the reft oiGenti- lis his Writings made publick ; and defpifes the bulky Volumes, and vaft, tedious, Pa- radoxical Books of other Authors, if com- par'd with Genttlis his Works. But this (methin.ks3 is a Trick no Inge- nuous or Honefi: Man would have been guilty of in a matter of fuch moment. Chrift, the Prophets, and Apoftles, never made ufe of thcfe little Artifices to recom- mend their Writings to Pofterity. It was wifely faid of King Solomon^ Let another pratfe thee^and not thine own rfwutb. And we have a Proverb among our felves, which fays, Thai, they mud needs have lad Neig^^ lours^ ivho are jar cd to commend themfelves. But the truth is, he w^as afraid, that had \\% not under a feign'd Name commended it himfelf, the Book would certainly have met with no body clfe that would have been fo kind, as to give it a good Cha- radter. Secondly, He was afraid to difcover th€ place where it vyas printed. For tho the Bopk Book had been publiflied at Lyons, yet he craftily pretends it was done at Antwerp. But thefe were but civil Lies he made ufe of the better to difperfe his pernicious Prin- ciples. Thirdly, He begins his Confeffion with ' the fame. probity ; It was ly yourCommanJ^ nonoured Sir, &c. For the better under- ftanding of which Cheat, I defire all good Men to take notice, that the truth of the whole bufinefs is this : Gentilis being under cuftody, was com- manded in that quality to exhibit a Con- feffion of his Faith to the Governour of Gaium, which he defign'd fliould be exa- min'd by the Clergy of that Province : But in the mean time, Gentilis, whofe Charader was not yet fully known, nor his Confeffion examin'd, was, by the inter- ceflion of fome Friends, difmift'd out of Prifon upon his good Behaviour, the Go- vernour all the while, not in the lead fuf- peding he had kept a Copy of his Confeffion to himfelf. But as foon as he was difmifs'd, be im- mediately difpers'd his Conjeffion, as if he had been commanded by the Governour fo to do. The Governour did, indeed, com- mand mand him, as being a fufpeded Heretick, to exhibit a CotifefioM^ but never gave him Orders to publifli fuch a Blafphemous Libel under the protedion of his Name. All that Gent ills could ever fay in defence of this notorious Forgery, was only this ; That as theGovernour never did command him, fo neither did he ever forbid him to publifli it. But what reafon, I pray you, had he to prohibit him, when as he never fufpedled, that he would have had the Im- pudence to publifli it. But Fourthly, We have already told you, and that from his own Mouth, how he publifli'd fuch Confeflions of the Trt»i^ ty^ both at Qrenchle and Lyons ^ as were ad- mitted for Orthodox by the * Fapifts them* ^fVizSucb felves. And yet he has the Impudence to ^^c^enc- accufe us for joyning with them in the de- \^q^^^ fence of a Quatemitj^ and for fubmitting uoUor, to the grievous Errors of the Greek and^^>^^*''^ Latin Fathers in this Dodrinc Certainly ^fa^u there cannot be a more malicious and de- hothds-^ ceitful reprefentation of this DoQrine, than -S^^j^j this wicked Man lias given out. So that alTaien- I may more truly call his falfe Accufations ^^Threc Impoftures, Sophiftry, Magick, and much gf;;^ worfe Names. Spiritiin thcTdni- ^y* ^^^ ^[' ^WV" f ^ Skeghiws de Trjnitate, /o/. 5 3. /». 2. Fifthly, iZO /I un^l */2t i^uftmr Fifthly, At his return out of Poland^ he prefented to the Governour of Gaium a Draught or Form, for having a Publick Difputation, which I fliall here prefent the Reader with, as it is tranfcrib'd verhatim from his own Original ; that fo all honeft Men may fee, what fort of Spirit it was that govern'd him through the whole Tranfaftion. The Inftrument, which he caus'd to be Publifh'd under the Governor's Name, ran in the following form. To all and Angular the Paftors, Teachers, Deacons and Elders, of the Reformed and Evangelick Churches, difpers'd through S^Vo)! and Franee^ to whom thefe Let- ters fhall come, or to whom they fiiall be read. Health and Peace in the Lord. FOrafmuch as We have read and confi- derd the ahove-written PropoJitioHSy that are oppofite to each other ; and having heard the Jujl and Reafonable Petition of Valentinus Gentilis an Italian, humhly re-^ quejiing^ That this weighty Controverfie might' mighl he decide 4 barely from the Word of God ; The I/Iujlrioids Governor of Q^dwxm haSy vtpon thefe coriltderations^ thought fit to tranfmit Copies of the Doclrhie afferted ly both Parties^ into fever al places of France, andSdMo^^ more particularly //? Lyons and feneva, to the intent^ that If there be any oj Mr. Calvin'^ Difciples^ who will take up'^ OH hhn to defend the affert ions oj his Mafler^ he may come to Gaium within the Jpace of o^e IVeekj there to difpute with GentiliSj upon this condition^ That rvhofoever fhall not be able to . demo'/ijlrate the Prodgfittons^^ he undertook tv maintain^ to be true, out of the plainXrord of God^ fhall be looked ^ uppit, . as a notonoiu hfipojior^ and Affert or ■. of a f^ilfe Religion.and fhall ^ fuffer Death for the # ^ , fame. But. if there be none that fhall appeq^r tGr-ntilis within the time here prefcriled^ the lUnflri' hif<^red ous Governor^ with the whole Senate ■^/'''cLlin Gaium, are rejolvdy as is mofl fitpi^ig^ytohtsown public kly to declare y Th^t. the abovena.t^\l f^'^"^^' Gentilis is truly Orthodox in ^ his Opinionsy concerning the >noJfHigbOp'dg a^^id hi^ 'S^n> Jefus Christ y.U^. 'T.^laoD if: Ideure all-good Mep,tQ;obfer\/e, wlm an advanta'gibus way of Difputipg (^fot\ himfeU I roean^' our Ad verfary has here prefcribed. ' ForGd'^/r/Z/i'sPropofitions are fif^. pjdljjjljd to.be pious.^^ijKi/found; thv^ti. rr- ' ^ K ' ' there there is only eight days time allow'd for the Difputants to come together ,• whereas 'tw^as almoft impoffible for the Challeoge to be fent to them in fo ftiort a time. But that is particularly to be taken notice of, that no body was to Difpute but under Pe- nalty of lofing h'n Lije^ if conquer'd. Is fiot this, I pray you, an evident fign of z Seducing and Diabolical Spirit > And when he was charg'd with this bafe contrivance, his Anfwer was, That he did it only that he might have the fewer Oppofers. But . this hlooJy Spirit fufficiently betrays it felf, that would involve Religion in Mur- der and falfe Opinions ; but that (thanks be to the good Providence of God) the ruin he defign'd agamft others, fell wpon his own Pate. • And lad of all, when he was to have ta- ken his Tryal, and to have defended his Doctrine, he did, by a remarkable piece of Knavery, endeavour to obtain the Pri- vilegeof a Plaintif, and to be heard as fuch, thereby to avoid being Try'd as a Criminal ; and when that could not be granted him, he prnpos'd his Doftrine fo ambiguoufly, and rais'd fcruples about matters, altogether impei'tinent to theControverrie,as Whether there rvas one moji high God ; and whether CtTrifi was the Sdn of Qod^ ' and the like ; which nobody did ever deny. Uut he was ftill Of Valentinus uentilis. 131 ftiH opposed in this, That Chriji was to le excluded from the TJnity of the Eternal God - and that three Eternal Spirits^ di- «d lltNguij})d by Numerical Ejftnce^ ought to he allow d. A And now let all good Men judge, what we ought to think of this Blafphemy ; and how juflly he was punifli'd with Death, who durft challenge others to Difpute with him for their Lives. But it is now high time to rid my hands of this bufmefs. In ihcrc then, after that Wft had us*d a!I manner of means with him, even from the jth of Augiifi to the 9th of Stptemhcr^ (but all to no purpofe, he ftill perfevering obftinate in his Opinions^ he was at laft condemned to Dye by the Ho- norable Senate. And becaufe it may be acceptable to the Reader, I (liall here re- hearfe the Sentence of Condemnstion, which was pronounced againft him in the following Words. Pf7;fre'ji V»alentinusGentilic, a Native of Cofentia, in the Kingdom of Naples, after /encfof eight years preparation to attack the Doclrine Ccndem- oj //7f Trinity, did hegin openly to teach^ ^^{tTi^ That there were in the Triaity three di-owGenX. ftind Spirits, differing from each other in * viz. Numerical EfTence : Among/7 ivbich {three '^m^^si Eternal Spirits ; Forfo it is inths 6th Propofjtton^fft down in the ^th Chapter md m the 6th ajfo^ where he fays the Father, Son.and H", Gh, Tres funt Wtcrni Spiritus gui unus efle non poiTunt. ^ % Spirits) }l^ A 'Brief Account Spirits^ he acknowledges the Father only to he that infinite God, which we ought to Wor- fkip^ which is plain Blafphemy again ft the Son; and, hefides thisOpiriion, has broach" d Jei^eral other dangerom Errors, for which he was apprehended ly the Magiftrates of Geneva, and heingjully Convicied §f them, there made his Recantation, and did pul- *Valenti- Uckly confcfs, Atlt^^and^ abjure, thefe his ""'G^cim-jr/Vif^^O/'-v.^vVj ; and moreover, hound him- Abj'icrV^^/ h ^^^'^ ^^^ i<> depart out of that City without leave of the Senate , yet notwith- standing all this, violated the Sacred ohliga- tions of his Oath, hy Jlealing away jrom thence, and by relapfing into the Erroneous Opinions he had once Abjur'd, and rc-affu- rning their Defence with greater heat and earneflnrfs, loth by Difputing and Writing Books in cppcfithn to the plain oni exprejs TeHimonies of Scripture ; and hath been guilty of the vilejl Scurrility, and mojl hor- rid Blafphemies, agalnft the Son of Gcd, and the Glorious Myfiery of the Trinity. And hfily^ Jhce his b:;ing made Prifoner to this Honorable Senate, hail), notwithflanding that full and fiijjic lent Lift ruCl ion which hath been given him, (I ill continued cbjliuate in his perverfe and Heretical Opinions : This {■hncurable Senate, to prevent diffur- hances^ ar.d to root out juch piflilent Errors. of Valentinus GentiUs. 155 Errors^ have aJjuJgd him ^ to be Be- *^^^^^'^^^' neadCu. very learn- edly calls Crematus eft, fol. 54. And Ultricibus fiammis Tradltus , fol- 3 2 • As he was led out to Execution, the ob- ftinatc Wretch did not ccafe to Glory in his unruly and pertinacious Stubbornnefs, and expeding praifc from it (as the Devil's Martyrs ufe to do) never left ofFcrying out. That he died a Martyr for theGIory of tlie mod high God ; but that we * w^re a/ISa- ^^ ^^^ ^ lellians, and held one God under three locic/ Names ; but that he did acknowledge no i-^^z'^^z- God i^nV. And tho we frequently an- ''^^''^<^- fwer'd him, That the things he laid to our Charge were all "^ falje and Jlanderciu ; » ^^ ^^^^ that all the noife he made about this mo^fwerto high God was only mere Sophiftry, and ^''"/•'^'*/ that his ajjertwg more Gods than One was the fame - downright Impiety, yet we could work no- tho(Godle thing upon him. For he ftill continued to^^^^!^'^-^ repeat his old Blafpbemies, until he hsk' of ar^f"^ there was no help for him, but that he^^^(/?A"'> muft be fcrc'd to lay down his Neck to f^^^^J' -{^ the Block ; then he began to faulter, and ilandcr. laid, He ihould be very willing to agree with us, if fobe we v^ould but ownChrift to be the Son of God ; when we told him, This was what we never deny'd (for ']^iiat otherwife would have becomeof our Faith?) no i;4 ji^rtefjaounty &c. Faith?) Then again did he difcover his falfliood and treachery, as having (till been us'd to appropriate tbe appellation of God to the Per Jon of the Father only ; and in this horrid Blafphemy he ftill perfever'd, the whole AlTembly (that flood by) praying to God tliat lie would change his mind, and we continually exhorting him to re- * How pentance, he had * his life taken from him J^rlff^ by the juft Judgment of God ; and fo his fare with Life and his Blafphemies ended together. Trithetjm ig'^jjjS^" And thus I have given the&(Good Read* which^tho er) a brief and faithful Account of this Zoloft Its (hatter'd Hiftory. And mud now beg thee Head**/- . . . -' . ^ ^_ , Bern, lifts to joyn wi.th US m our Prayers to ood, ^\i^^ that he would, in his Mercy, turn away ^Itf'"' fuch fcandalous Offences from his Church ,- Pauls) . that he would give his People vigilant and here. g^g Minifters, who may fincerely love found Dodrine, fuccefsfully rebuke Gain- fayers, and know how to divide the Word of^ Truth rightly, to the Glory of bis Ns^me, and the good of his Church, through Jefus Chrift his Only and Coeter- nal Son. Amen. THE TH E Reader, by comparing the preceding Hiftory with what here follows, will per- ceive that the principal Propofition o{ Valentinus Gentills^ is in Sence.perfedlly the fame with thofe Condemned by the late Oxc^;? Cenlure j as alfo aflert- ed by Dr. Sherlock. At a Meeting of the Vke-ChanceSor and the Heads of Colleges and Halls of the TJniverfity of Oxford, OH the z$th Day of November, in the Tear of Our Lord i6()'). WHEREAS in a Sermon lately preached be- fore theUniverfity oivxford, in the Churcfa ofSt, Peter in the Eajl^ on the Feaft of S. Simon and Jude laft part, thefe Words, amongft others, were delivered and ajQerted, viz. [There are T)jree h finite diflin£l Minds and Snljlances in the Trinity^ Item \That theThree Ferfons in the Trinity are Three dirtinii hfinite Minds or Spirits^ and Three Indivi-* dual Suhjiances^ Which gave juft caufc of Oifence ihd Scandal to many Perfons : The VIce-Chancellor and Heads of Colleges and Halls, at their general Meeting this Day afiembled, do judge and declare the faid Words to beFalfe, Im- pious, and Heretical ,• Contrary to the Dodlrine of the Catholick Church, and particularly to the re- ceived Do^iae of the Church of England : ^ And do therefore fLrid^y forbid all manrrer oF Ferfons, under their Care and Charge, to Preach of Publifli any fuch Dodrine for the future. By Order of Mr. Vice'Chancellor. Ben. Cooper Notarle puUkk and Reg'fjler of the Vmverfiiy of Oxort. This Sentence, it is confefled, may, and, not im- probably, will be confirmed, and farther enforced, by the more Authentick Sentence of the whole Univer- fity in Convocation : In the mean time, it has cer- tainly had this good effed. That it has Unkennelled the Wvlj^ who quickly fliew himfelf after it. So that being hereby bereaved of all his Shifts^ Meanings, and Subterfuges^ and Sheeps Cloathhg befides, the Univerfity has him now in full Chaf(,' and, 'tis hoped, will not give the Chafe over, till it has run him down. So7ne of the grojjer Exva,t3i of the Trefs are thus to he Corrected. ' /for/ frequently. . 7 01 IT PAg. f . I. 5- for produce T. produce, p; 8 1 1 9. fov I am v. J AM. p. 18. in the Margent, for ^vf^mnMV r.£v(>mA'fnen, I.16. (or Pen- nance V. Pc7iance, p. 44. 1. 6- for a,v7o^Q- r. avto^Q'' p 48. 1. i.for '©TSrAr.'OTSrA. p.54. 1.22. for perjmes Jubfiftenies r, -perJc^iAs Jubjiftentes^ p. 70. 1. 29. for Joy(^^ p.^r-l ^<*K {ovA,ToVT dvTiv, p. 94. 1. 5- foT ATTt)?. )isw, 1. 1 1, for t (?€ hoyf^ r^t^'"^ then the Kr^y^^ P-97- I. S. for j'Si'fJiT}! n.y.vvm.