Valentinus Gentilis – The Tritheist Put to Death In Bern, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Of those Words, Trinitas, foreign, and what they do properly signifie.
NOW because he quarrels with the word Trinity as us'd by us, and every where confounds foreign and foreign (using promiscuously the Words foreign, substantia, essentia, persona, and hypostasis,) we will therefore briefly explain their proper significations. For there is not an Arranter Piece of Sophistry, than to use Words in a different sence from that, wherein they have usually been received and taken? 'Tis true indeed, we ought not to be over Nice in our Expressions; and wrangle about Words, when we are agreed as to the thing; but what madness is it to Coin new Terms, and cry down the old without any reason or necessity? It is Let Dr. Sherl and his Party give a satisfactory Answer to this, if they can.in my Opinion equally adviseable to retain the Language, as well as to imitate the Manners of our wise Forefathers.
But to come to the business: The Word Trinity in this Question does not signifie an Abstracted Number, as when we say in Latin ternio, quaternio, [in English three or four Units] but it denotes an foreign, something really existing; thence it is that the Trinity was call'd foreign. Conformably to which the Greek Fathers, Gregory Nazianzen, St. Basil, Damascen, and also the Latins, do generally speak of the Trinity. And therefore Gentilis is much in the wrong, when he concludes, because the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and the Trinity likewise God, therefore there are four Persons of the Godhead; and whoever asserts this, must likewise assert a Quaternity, not a Trinity. We do absolutely deny the consequence. For no body says that the Trinity as distinct from, and without the Persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is God *Or that the Godhead Subsists by it self, out of the Persons, but actually and wholly in the Persons, and not otherwise.For the very being of the Trinity [and of the Godhead too] is in these three Persons, and without them there can be neither Godhead, nor Essence of the Godhead. But the true consequence had been this, the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and these three are One, therefore there is in the Godhead a Trinity of Persons; nor by asserting of this do we in any wise set up a new God or Idol. But to proceed, the Word [Trinity] was not without very good reason brought into the Church. For the Bishops assembled with Athanasius at Alexandria [as we are told by Sozomen, l. 6. c. 20. Hist. trip.] to defend and establish the Decree of the Nicene Council concerning the consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and H. Ghost, in opposition to the turbulent Arians, sixt upon the Word foreign, or Trinity, thereby intending to signifie the three Persons of the same Substance, not dividing the Substance, nor confounding the Persons. And ever since the Word has been made use of by all Orthodox Councils, as well as by the Greek and Latin Fathers. Nay, the Scripture it self speaks to the very same purpose, Iohn 1. cap. 5. There are Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and these Three are One. And so likewise in the Baptism of Christ, Mark 1. Mat. 3. and in the Institution of Baptism, Mat. 28. there is plain mention made of three Persons. 'Tis therefore an impudent and a frontless rash Censure, to call the Trinity a meer Human Invention, utterly unknown to the Orthodox Creeds. The Nicene, Alexandrian, and Ephesine Creeds, are all confessedly Orthodox, and yet all make use of the Word Trinity. But here he replies, they never acknowledg'd the Trinity to be a God. I must ☜profess, I can't tell what he would be at with his Deus Trinitas: If by it he understands a fourth Person, it is one of his own making; and we may justly explode both him and his fancy; and he well deserves the Name of Impious Libertine, that in a matter of so great importance dares fly to these wicked Cavils; but if by Deus Trinitas he understands Deus Trinus, or a Trinity in the Godhead *Or a Trinity which is God.'tis plain he has asserted a notorious falshood, since we have already prov'd both Councils and Fathers to have us'd the Word Trinity in this Sence, and that a Trinity in the Godhead was no Novelty to them.
Thus our Crafty Adversary would sain father upon us the Notion of a Deus Trinitas, distinct from, or without the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But 'tis all perfect Calumny; and God forbid the Church of Christ should be ever guilty of such a Blasphemous Position. I think it needless to dwell any longer upon the Explication of the Word Trinitas, since we have evidently demonstrated [whatever Valentinus vainly pretends to the contrary] that by a Trinity we understand foreign, something real, or really subsisting; and that the Catholick Creeds have not been unaccustom'd to the Word. After the same lewd manner he plays upon the Words foreign and foreign, often Styling them an Impertinant Iargon. But he ought to have consider'd, that it is not the least Excellence in the Art of Teaching, to be able to give things their proper Appellations; and that nothing can be a more evident sign of a malicious, narrow Spirit, than to wrap up our Knowledge in a Cloud of ambiguous dark expressions, especially in treating of a Subject so highly Mysterious, that no Human Understanding is able sufficiently to explain it. For whatever we can say of God is too mean, and falls much below the dignity of his immense and glorious Majesty. So that the Ancients did wisely observe, that we could much easier tell, what God was not, than what He was. And that saying of Iustin Martyr well deserves our notice, foreign, &c. i. e. 'Tis extreamly difficult to conceive aright of God, but to express or declare him fully is impossible; and therefore 'twas piously said by Evagrius, Socr. lib. 6. Hist. Trip. c. 21. That the ineffable Mystery of the Trinity, was rather in silence to be ador'd, than dogmatically to be *What? not explained by Self-Consciousness and Mutual Consciousness? which, we are told, makes a Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, a plain, easie, and Intelligible Notion, and Solves all difficulties about it. Sh. Vin Trin.explained. Thus we call God a Substance, tho' in Propriety of Speech he cannot be so Styl'd: for a Substance is capable of being Defin'd, but God is foreign, boundless, and not to be circumscrib'd within any limits of Words. Therefore I think we ought to handle such a Subject, with the greatest humility and reverence, and to be extreamly cautious, how we make use of any expressions, but such as are receiv'd, common, and most applicable to it.
Because God is in the Scripture Styl'd foreign, as in the Hebrew Iehovah from Eijeh, so in the like signification from foreign he is called foreign; as from Deus they call'd the Divine Essence Deitas; so likewise did they express the Deity by foreign. The Greeks do otherwise use the Word foreign to signifie Riches, Goods, or Possessions, as in that, foreign; i. e. of your Goods or Money: and by Philosophers 'tis us'd to signifie that which is contradistinguished to an Accident, viz. a Substance.
But amongst Divines, and particularly in this Controversie, foreign is put to signifie the Divine Essence. It was indeed long controverted, whether this Word ought to have been rendred into Latin by Essentia or Substantia; but the generality have thought Essentia to be the most proper Translation, and therefore do by foreign express the common Nature of the Godhead in the Trinity.
'Tis likewise the common Opinion of St. Austin, lib. 7. de Trin. that it is more properly rendred by Essentia. But, says he, whether you take it for Essence, which is the proper, or for Substance, which is the corrupted Translation of the Word, it still denotes something Absolute not Relative. So again, lib. 5. de Trin. c. 8. I call that Essence which the Greeks term foreign; and presently after, foreign, i. e. One Essence, but three Subsistences. And in the same Book, cap. 2. Est tamen sinè dubitatione substantia, vel fi meliùs haec appelletur essentia, quam Graeci foreign vocant. St. Ierom in some places retains the Word Usia, as in his Book against Lucifer. In others he Translates it by Substantia, as in his Epistle to Damasus. Sufficiet (says he) nobis dicere unam substantiem, tres persones subsistenies perfectas, aequales, cooeternas. In the same place he renders it Essentia, as Deus essentiae nomen verè tenet; and again, Nomen essentiae sibi vendicat propriè Deus.
As to the Word Hypostasis in Profane Authors, it signified the same that foreign does; witness St. Ierom in his Epistle to Damasus. And Socrat. in 6. lib. c. 21. Hist. Tripartit. tells us out of Irenoeus Grammaticus, that the more Modern Philosophers took foreign and foreign to express the same thing, and this signification it retain'd amongst the Divines too for some time. Socrates makes use of it, Fol. 179. foreign. That he was not of a different Hypostasis or Substance, but the same with the Father. But at that time a Person was call'd foreign as in the same Author, lib. 1. c. 23. Another while foreign and foreign were taken for Synonymous terms, as in that passage of Socrates, foreign, i. e. Confessing the Son to be an Hypostasis and subsisting in God, and that there is one God in three Persons or Subsistences.
At last they did upon very good grounds limit the signification of foreign to Person only, and foreign and foreign became equivalent terms, as in Latin persona & subsistentia; so that a Substance with [personal] Properties was call'd foreign. In the time of St. Ierom the Controversie about this Word was still on foot, which makes him call it a Novel expression; and therefore seeing some call'd substance Hypostasis; and others were us'd to say three Hypostases, i. e. Three Persons, He asks Damasus his Advice what to do in the business. Si jube as (says he) non timebo tres foreign dicere.
And 'tis plain from the Hist. Tripar. that the Fathers were very cautious in the using of these expressions, and seldom did it, unless in a case of great necessity.
Upon this account it was that the Bishops assembled with Athanasius did industriously let fall the Dispute about foreign and foreign, resolving to make use of those Words only against Sabellius; and were therefore concern'd lest that for want of Words foreign or Substance, and foreign or Subsistence, might be mistaken one for the other. Ruffinus says the same, lib. 10. c. 29.
At present some Translate foreign by Substance, and foreign by Subsistence; others more significantly term foreign Person; foreign Essence, for as foreign is in Greek derived foreign, so in Latin essentia comes ab esse. However I think, 'tis no great matter which way it be taken, so that the sence be the same. So then the common Nature or Essence of the Godhead is foreign; according to which God is One, but the Persons are term'd foreign or foreign. In this sence they are said to be three Hypostases, that is, Subsistences, or they are three foreign or Persons; or as the Greeks, foreign, three Persons in one Substance. Iustin Martyr and others call them tres foreign & tria foreign.
But Gentilis in his Explication of the Trinity does not only confound the Words foreign and foreign, but goes yet farther, and places the distinction of the Three Persons foreign, or their Substance.
When we told him, that this was plainly against the sence of the Scripture, and consent of Antiquity; his Answer was, that the Word foreign was not to be found expresly in Scripture; which was as much as Arius himself could have said: for St. Ierom against Lucifer tells us, that this was the very Argument Valens and his Followers us'd to turn the Word *Since condemned and equally exploded by Dr. Sherl.foreign out of the Church, and at the same time to condemn the Confession of the Nicene Council.
But we have already shewn how this Word was taken up in opposition to Sabellius; And tho' our Author would fain be thought an indifferent Person between Arius and Sabellius, yet he seems most to espouse the Cause of Arius.