Valentinus Gentilis – The Tritheist Put to Death In Bern, Chapter 14 – Chapter 16
CHAP. XIV.
Containing the Iudgment of St. Ignatius.
ST. Ignatius was Contemporary with Polycarp, and Disciple to St. Iohn, asis evident from Eusebius in his Chronicon. St. Ierom says that he wrote several Epistles, and reckons some of them. Yet it is certain, that several Spurious Pieces have been attributed to him. However, I shall not now Dispute their Authority; but supposing, with Gentilis, that they are all Genuine, let us see how far they do countenance his Opinion.
Gentilis endeavours to prove from these Epistles, that the Son is in Essence distinct from the Father; or, to use his own expression, that they are two *The true Tritheistical Dialect.Eternal Spirits distinct in Numerical Essence. We, on the contrary affirm, That St. Ignatius never so much as Dream'd of any such thing, but taught that the foreign, or Word, was one and the same God with the Father, yet so, that they are in themselves personally distinct.
In his Epistle to the Magnesians he says, that the foreign was not a Pronounced, but a Substantial Word. And for what he says a little after, that he is an foreign, a begotten Substance, thô it must be confess'd that this is an harsh expression, yet on the contrary it plainly appears, that he there meant nothing else by foreign, but that which doth really subsist, i. e. an foreign; a Subsistent Being; to which he opposes a vocal sound, which presently vanishes.
In the same Epistle he says of the Son, that he declar'd the One and Only true God to be his Father; and speaking of the Doctrine of our Lord, that he reveal'd to the World the true God his Father. But what's all this to a distinction of Essence?
In his Epistle to the Tarsenses he says▪ that the foreign was not he who is God and Father over all, but his Son; which amounts to no more than this, That the Son was not the Father; which was the Heresie of the Patripassians, who did thus confound the Persons.
In his Epistle to the Philippians, he cites this place out of the 1 Cor: 8. There is but one God [Father] of all things; and presently after, There is but one God and Father; not two or three, one who is [and there is no other besides him] the only true God. But afterwards he adds, by way of Explication, therefore there are not three Fathers, nor three Sons, nor three Holy Ghosts, but one Father, and one Son, and one Holy Ghost; and proves this Trinity from the Institution of Baptism, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; not into any one that had three Names, nor yet into three that were made Men, but into three of the same Majesty; for there is one only who was made Man, neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, but only the Son; who was not so by estimation, or in appearance only, but in truth and reality; for the Word was made Flesh and dwelt therein: So that here St. Ignatius does plainly oppose the Patripassians, and such like Hereticks, but does not in the least favour [or patronize] Gentilis his Notion. In the very same Epistle disputing against the Patripassians, he writes thus: And again, How doth it appear unto you, that Christ was not Born of the Virgin Mary, but that it was he [the Father] who is God above all, and Almighty? Who then was it that sent him? Tell me who was he that rul'd over him? Whom did he obey, or whose Law did he fulfill? You, who would have him yield to no one's Command or Power, do separate Christ from him that begat him; you make the Unbegotten to have been Begotten, and him that was without Beginning to have been nailed to the Cross. Which is all said by him in direct opposition to the Patripassians or Sabellians.
In the same Epistle, he brings in Christ disputing against the Devil: I know, says he, and have known One only God, whom I do not refuse to Obey, but thou hast prov'd an Apostate and Rebel to him; for I am not foreign, i. e. contrary to God, but I acknowledge his Soveraignty, and do not refuse to Worship him, whom I know to have been the Author and Lord of my Nativity, and only Preserver; for I live in and through the Father, &c. But these are the Words of Christ Incarnate, who owns himself in respect of his Humanity, to be inferior to the Father. For if these Words were to be understood with respect to the Divine Nature, how could Christ be said to live propter Patrem, or rather [Per.] seeing he [as God] is Self-existent, or hath life in himself, and power to lay it down.
In his Epistle to the Philadelphians, he Exhorts them to Union, and draws his Arguments from the Unity of the Flesh and Blood of Christ, from the Mystical Union of the Bread and Wine; and likewise from the Unity of the Father and the Son. His words are these: Because there is one Father Unbegotten, and one only Begotten Son, God the Word and Man, and one Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth; also one Gospel, one Faith, one Baptism, and one Church. By which words he only urges them to Unity and Concord in the Church. Hence he makes this conclusion, Therefore it behoov'd them as a chosen People, a Royal Priesthood, and an Holy Nation, to be perfected in Love and Concord. To the same purpose is what he says in this Epistle against Ebion, who made Christ a meer Man, and therefore he shews, That Christ was God begotten of the Father; which contains no absurdity in it, unless violently wrested [by a faithless Exposition.]
In his Epistle to Polycarp: Here, says he, is the Race, here the Crown, wait for Christ the Son of God, who is foreign, without Time, and yet Born in Time. Thus Damascene, and others, call the foreign. Ignatius adds, That as God he was Impassible, [not capable of Suffering] but that as Man he was Passible, and did suffer for our sakes. And what can Gentilis say against this? Will he say, that Christ, as God, did suffer? And that the foreign, as such, had properly Flesh and Blood? St. Ignatius is of another mind, and doth plainly and Orthodoxely distinguish the two Natures under [or in] the one Person of Christ. The one of which, namely, the Divine, is properly and per se Impassible; but the other, viz. the Human, is properly Passible. Gentilis confounds these Proprieties of the two Natures, and affirms that the foreign had himself all these Affections. Christ, indeed, has properly Flesh and Bones, and Blood, being truly and properly Incarnate. But the foreign, or Divine Nature in Christ, has no such properly in it self.
In his Epistle to the Antiochians he says, That we ought not to deny Christ under pretence of asserting One God, and brings several Testimonies out of Scripture, as Deut. 6. Isai. 44. Gen. 1. & 17. which do all speak of One God, and at the same time express different Persons; as when Moses saith, The Lord rain'd [fire and brimstone] from the Lord; and yet in other places saith, There is but One God, which Unity doth not exclude the Son and Holy Ghost; whom he, on the contrary, includes with the Father in the Unity of the Godhead. So that a Trinity of Persons doth not at all interfere with the Unity of Essence.
And at the end of that Epistle, he truly distinguishes the Properties of the Persons. May he protect and defend you (says he) who is the Only unbegotten God, [speaking of the Father] through him who was begotten before all Ages, i. e. Through the Son, whose property it is to be begotten. But here Gentilis objects the last clause of this Epistle, viz. Valete Deo & Christo, as if these were different, and the Father alone was call'd God, but Christ Dominus or Lord, so as to be excluded from the communion or fellowship of the only God.
In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he commends them for being one Body, and adds this Argument for their Union: for, says he, there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all. But it is not Ignatius's Opinion, that the Father was the Only one God; no more doth it appear from the following sentence of his, Medicus noster est Solus verus Deus, Deus ingenitus. For if these Epithets were to be understood of the Father only, the Son would not then be our Physician: But St. Ignatius distinguishes the Persons here only by their Proprieties; for a little after he calls Christ our Physician, impassible in a passible Body.
CHAP. XV.
Concerning the Iudgment of Tertullian.
TErtullian, without doubt, is to be read with a great deal of caution, as Gentilis himself confesses; and therefore it is the easier for him either to pass by and reject his Authority, as he pleases, or else to extol and commend it, as occasion serves.
But Tertullian, as in many other places, so particularly in his Book against Praxeas is very Orthodox, where he expresly says [of the Persons in the Trinity] that numerum sine divisione patiuntur; They allow of number without division: And afterwards, Ubi que teneo unam substantiam in tribus cohoerentibus; I do always acknowledge one Substance in the Three thus united. Gentilis says, that in these and the like places Tertullian spoke waveringly, and will have them refer to Montanus his Paraclete; which, notwithstanding all this, are very Orthodox. But on the contrary, we say that Tertullian against Hermogenes did not only speak doubtfully, but did actually make use of the Phrases and Expressions of Arius; when he says, There was a time when the Son of God was not; which saying must of necessity be extreamly well lik'd by Gentilis, as that which doth make the Son posterior to the Father in the order of the Godhead. But it is plainly an Arian expression, the same with the foreign, which we have already mention'd out of Nicephorus, lib. 8. cap. 8.
But Tertullian doth often recollect himself, and not only makes use of proper expressions, but seems likewise to be Orthodox enough in his Notions, as in the same Treatise against Hermogenes he says, Divinitas gradum non habet utpote unica; The Divinity or Godhead can admit of no degrees, as being but one.
These and the like passages do sufficiently demonstrate, that Tertullian acknowledg'd no separation, no division in the Godhead; but yet, in respect of the different Persons, he did allow of a Numerical distinction.
And thus much we thought fit to take out of Iustin Martyr, Ignatius and Tertullian; these being the Fathers to whom Gentilis lays so great a claim, as if they were wholly Patrons of his Opinion. I shall not concern my self much with any of the others, since the Opinions of Hilary and Irenaeus are too well known, to give any one just occasion to suspect, that they were favourers of this Pestilential Error; and those passages Gentilis quotes out of them are answer'd by the Authors themselves. Nor shall I at present bring any Quotations out of the many other both Greek and Latin Writers, since Gentilis rejects all their Authorities.
CHAP. XVI.
Concerning the other Fathers, especially St. Austin.
GEntilis then, without any distinction, rejects all other both Greek and Latin Writers, and who cannot but wonder at the daring confidence of such a Fellow? Here we have a censorious *And at this day we have such another amongst us.Upstart, who like another Aristarchus, boldly arraigns and condemns all Antiquity, unless they will acknowledge Three Eternal distinct Spirits in the Divine OEconomy; and all the ☞three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled in the Nicene Council, must be herded amongst the Hereticks, because they confess'd but One God Eternal. He prefers Arius before them all, would he but have admitted the term foreign, as newly explain'd by himself. But I will not oppose him with fallible Human Authority, seeing we may easily consute this Blasphemous Error out of the Scripture it self. And Arius, whose wicked Spirit seems now to revive in, or to rest upon this Monster of Iniquity, was condemn'd of Old, and confuted not by Human Authority, but from the Holy Scriptures and Consent of the Church. My design being Historically to make it appear, that this wicked Man has set up a new Interpretation of Holy Scripture, and to gain his Point the easier, has, without any modesty or civility, taken liberty to rail at and calumniate, not only the Fathers, but likewise all the Orthodox Councils.
However, he ought either to have submitted to such approv'd Authors, and to the Consent of the Church, or else to have confuted them out of the Word of God. This he does not, but cites some few places of Scripture, upon which he puts a new Interpretation; and when we deny this to be the true meaning of them, and assert, That the Church of God did never understand those places in such a manner, and for proof of it appeal to all the Authentick Writers both amongst the Greeks and Latins, he cries out, That we are a parcel of Dogmatical Pedants and Hereticks, and presently flies over to Arius, and the Bishops, which follow'd him, as if there were a better Interpretation of Scripture amongst them, than there is in Athanasius, and those who approv'd of his Confession of Faith. He treats St. Austin in a very scurrilous manner, no ways deserv'd by so excellent a Writer. He charges him, as well as us, with holding a Quaternity, a Notion he never was so Phantastick as to dream of. He styles that Reverend Father an Enthusiastick Writer, a Magician, and a Sophister, such calumnies as he never receiv'd at the hands of his most Mortal Enemies. The Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, he calls an Imaginary Being, an Ens rationis, and St. Austin's Goddess, which is downright abominable Blasphemy. And notwithstanding all this, our crafty Scribler, to reconcile himself to St. Austin, and wipe off the Odium such rude expressions must necessarily bring upon him, at last gravely pronounces this Oracular saying, That he believes, were St. Austin now alive, and could enjoy but this clear light of the Gospel, he would, with his own hands, throw his Books of the Trinity into the Flames. A thing very likely indeed! that St. Austin shou'd take Example from this vile Man, and Perjure himself as he hath done. But of this enough.