Valentinus Gentilis – The Tritheist Put to Death In Bern, Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII.
Containing the Iudgment of Justin, Martyr and Philosopher.
Iustin Martyr, an Excellent Writer, and who liv'd near the Times of the Apostles, is very Orthodox, as to the Article of the Trinity, unless it be when his Words are maliciously wrested to the new way of Expounding Scripture. For the better understanding therefore of this Father, we must observe that his Writings were compos'd upon different occasions. In his Disputing with Trypho the Jew, he was to prove against the Jews, that besides God the Father, (whom the Jews acknowledge to have been the Creator of all things) there is another Person, namely, the Son of God, who is also the true God. Nor in this doth he at all divide the Substance, or Essence, but distinguishes betwixt the Persons or Subsistences [foreign]. These passages are abus'd by Gentilis, to establish his Notion of a distinct Essence. But that this was never the Mind of Iustin, will appear from his other Writings against the Gentiles, where he resolutely maintains, that there are not many, but One God. Which any, that have carefully read this Author, must necessarily know to be true.
It appears then, that Iustin took upon him to prove these two Propositions:
First, Against the Gentiles, that there was but One God, and not many, as the Heathens did vainly imagine: And,
Secondly, That this God, who was but One in Essence, did yet Subsist in three Persons.
That the True, Eternal God is but One, he proves from their own Poets and Philosophers, [the Gentiles being ignorant of the Scriptures] and particularly cites that Verse out of Orpheus:
foreign.
And farther, to shew that the Son was comprehended within the Unity of the Godhead, he brings another Verse out of the foreign of the same Poet, viz.
foreign.
And elegantly interprets the foreign there mention'd to be the foreign, Word [or Son] of God. From whence he concludes that those Ancient Poets did design to Instruct us in the knowledge of the One God. Now if it be prov'd out of Orpheus, that he own'd but one Only God, notwithstanding that he speaks of the foreign and foreign as two distinct Persons, it will then follow that this foreign and foreign are the One and Only God. And however Gentilis may wrest the Author's words, contrary to his meaning, it is plain, that this Epithet, namely, the One Only God, belongs to the Son. For, as I now said, he [Iustin] does according to Orpheus, infer the foreign and foreign from this Propriety.
Besides, the same Iustin Martyr does expresly affirm of the Son, foreign. Nothing can be more plainly said of the Divinity of the Son of God. For [says he] he was not barely call'd Angel and Lord. But he himself only is said to be the Angel and to be God. What is become then of that Propriety of the Father, whereby he is call'd the One Only God, seeing you are here told that the foreign or Son is foreign, i. e. the Only God?
Again, when God says, foreign, I am that I am; Iustin gives us the reason of this expression, namely, That he did not say this with respect to the Son, as if he would so distinguish him from himself, but in contradiction to those who are not Gods; from whence it follows, that the Son is not excluded from the Self-existent Deity: But this was said, that Men might know that they did formerly serve not those which were, but those which were not Gods.
As to the Word foreign or foreign, Iustin tells us the Word foreign is to be understood of the true God. foreign, saith he, foreign. For, says he, the Pronoun, foreign, denotes or expresses the true and very God. Therefore this makes nothing for the separation of the Father and the Son. For he presently after calls the Son foreign, the Inseparable Word of God. How then dare we be so bold as to make him distinct in Essence from the Father? Nay, make them two distinct Numerical Essences, and so too as that the one should be propagated by the other? It is certainly a very impudent piece of presumption, amidst such an Universal Consent; for us nicely to pry into these Divine Mysteries, which so vastly transcend our weak Capacities: Wherefore Iustin very admirably closes this Subject with that Wise Saying of Mercurius, foreign, &c.
Let us next consider his Dialogue against Tryphon the Jew, that so we may see how pertinently Gentilis does from thence prove his foreign or second Essence; of which, 'tis certain, Iustin never so much as dream'd. We must know then, that Trypho acknowledg'd One God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, but did not allow the Son and Holy Ghost to be God. Wherefore it lay upon Iustin to prove, that the foreign was true God, who assum'd unto himself Human Nature, made after the Image of God. Upon this Account it is, that he often says, That the Word was true God, which assum'd unto himself Human Nature; and therefore that the Name of God did belong to another [viz. to the Son] besides the Father; that so both might be One God, seeing Trypho himself affirm'd, that there could not be more Gods. Wherefore Iustin does directly oppose the Opinion of Gentilis, but not so as to make two Numerical Divine Essences, and to change the foreign into an foreign. His Words are these, foreign; i. e. There is another besides the Creator of the Universe, who both is, and is call'd God and Lord. Again, foreign foreign, i. e. This God, who is said and recorded to have appear'd to Abraham, Iacob, and Moses, is another from him, who made all things, in Number, I mean, but not in Mind.
Thus he makes two Numerically different Hypostases in one Essence. But Gentilis, either through Ignorance of the Greek Tongue, or out of his own malicious Design, has mistaken this place, by thinking that Iustin did here call the Divine foreign another God. Iustin himself explains his meaning in several other places; where speaking of the Son, he says, foreign, i. e. He is call'd God, and both is, and will be God. Nay, farther he plainly calls him foreign, God of himself. For Expounding that place in Exodus 3. concerning the Angel of the Lord that appear'd in the Burning Bush, he says, That this Angel was the Divine foreign, and presently after has these Words, foreign, i. e. The Scripture calls him This very Being, thereby denoting that he is Lord and God. From which expressions it evidently follows, that the Son is foreign. For in the first place it calls him the Angel of the Lord and Minister of God, but immediately after styles the very same foreign, and foreign, The Lord himself, and God himself. Therefore the Angel which appear'd unto Moses, is in Iustin's Opinion foreign, God of himself.
Let us next see, what way Iustin supposes the Son to have been Begotten. God, says he, did from all Eternity beget of himself a certain rational energy or operation [foreign] which is call'd the Glory of the Lord, the Son, the Wisdom, the Angel, God, Lord, and foreign or the Word. But then this foreign, says he, is not such an one as we see propagated by us. For we foreign, by uttering of a word do make it; which yet is not of our own Substance, but foreign [of another Nature]; but the foreign begotten of God is foreign [of the same Substance]. And to the same purpose he says afterwards, that the foreign begotten of the Father foreign, i. e. by his Energy and Will is true God; but he is not the true God, if he is begotten foreign, i. e. by dividing or parting of his Substance or Essence, since things that are so divided remain not the same they were before division. From whence 'tis as clear as the Sun, that Iustin's Opinion was that the foreign was foreign, i. e. of the very same Substance with the Father that begat him. Again, we may gather that the Son always was with the Father from these words, foreign foreign, i. e. The Begotten was always with the Father before [the Creation of] all things, and with him did the Father converse [from all Eternity]. Therefore there was always a Father, and always a Son, and they always were, are, and will be One God. Or else 'twould be improper to say, the Word was inseparable from the Father foreign, as the Light is inseparable from the Sun in the Firmament. Therefore when Iustin says the foreign is foreign or foreign, and foreign, i. e. The Word, or that which was Begotten, is Numerically distinct from him that did beget him, he must be understood with respect to the number of Persons, not of Essences, for they are indeed two Persons. And if we do not understand Iustin with respect to the Persons, we shall make him contradict himself, who so often urges the [Essential] Unity of the Father and the Son. Nay, he would say the same with Arius, who made use of this Argument to prove the foreign between the Father and the Son, because he that did beget was One, and he that was begotten was another. Therefore he that was begotten differs from him that did beget, and that in Number too; but yet in number Personal not Substantial; that is to say, they differ in Subsistence, not in Substance or Essence.
The same Father in his Apology to the Roman Senate, has these words, foreign. We Worship (says he) God, [viz. the Father] the foreign or Word begotten by the Eternal and Ineffable God, and love him, who was made Man for our sakes, that being made partaker of our Possions and Infirmities he might also heal them. In which words he distinguishes between the Persons of the Father and the Son, and shews that the Office of Mediator, the Mystery of the Incarnation, and the Redemption of Mankind, which is the true foreign, belong properly to the Son. Then he shews, what form of Invocation the Christians did use, which was unknown to the Romans; namely, That they call'd upon or Pray'd to the Father in the Name of the Son, by whose Merits they receiv'd Redemption. All these passages Gentilis wrests to another sence, and utterly rejects all the rest of his Writings; but especially his foreign, i. e. His Exposition of the Faith, where there is express mention made of a Trinity. For citing the place of St. Paul, Ephes. 2. In whom you also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit, Iustin adds, foreign; That God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost, one Godhead, did by their energy or operations dwell in us. And presently after foreign, i. e. There is one Name deliver'd down unto us, which jointly agrees to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And again, he expresly mentions and proves foreign, That is, the Sameness or Identity of Essence. Again, In the Trinity, says he, we understand an Unity, and in the Unity we acknowledge a Trinity. And again, We have deliver'd to you the Doctrine of one Godhead in three perfect Subsistences, &c.
Now these and the like passages being so very plain, that it was impossible to elude their force, Gentilis has chosen rather to deny this whole Treatise, viz. the foreign, than change his Judgment. And therefore 'twill be needless to produce any more Quotations, since, I think, it fully appears, from what we have said, what was the Judgment of Iustin Martyr the Philosopher in this particular.