Valentinus Gentilis – The Tritheist Put to Death In Bern, Chapter 18
CHAP. XVIII.
Containing some of Gentilis's Notorious Blasphemies.
ANother remarkable Instance of this Man's Impiety, may be taken from that scurrilous, impudent, blasphemous Language he hath so freely bestow'd upon this most Sacred Mystery; a Mystery, that we ought rather in humility to adore, than nicely to pry into. It must be consess'd, that even good Men do sometimes disagree in their Explication of Things, and are not always of the same mind in their Interpretations of Scripture; but yet they do it without railing, without opprobrious Language, and much more do they abstain from the blacker Crimes of Irreligion and Blasphemy. 'Tis no good sign of a Religious disposition, to scandalize and bespatter the Subject in dispute; and yet however, Gentilis has been so liberal of his Railery, that had he rak'd even Hell it self, he could not have met with more dirty noisome Expressions, nor more offensive to any Judicious Person.
He sticks not to call the Trinity an Idol; Pag. 62.the Tow'r of Babel; a New Idol, which we P. 30.have erected above the Father; a Tripersonate P. 6.Mock-God; a Diabolical, Fictitious P. 7.Person; a Fictitious Propriety and Sophistical Person in a New God. And pag. 8. An Imaginary Phantastick Person. Pag. 28. he calls the Trinity, Trium horrenda confusio & Execrabilis Mixtura. And pag. 33. says, That we have invented this New God, the Trinity, out of our own Heads. Pag. 39. he styles it a Fourth Idol, which deserves to be thrust down into Hell. And pag. 44. calls the first Person in the undivided Godhead a Magical Phantom, an empty Spectrum, that has begotten another Imaginary Person, or meer Relation.
Antid. 3. He calls the Deus Trinitas, Nomen Monstrosum. And pag. 56. he will have it be nothing but Magical Persons and Proprieties. Again, a Magical Propriety in a New Idol. Pag. 34. The three Persons he calls Three Magical Impostures; and the One God he styles a Fourth unknown Idol.
In his Printed Book, Fol. 6. he calls the Trinity a meer human Invention, diametrically opposite to the Truth of the Gospel; The belief of a Trinity is perfect Sophistry. And again, the Trinity is Deus Trinomius, a God only under three Names; which last he seems to have borrow'd from Sabellius.
Again, Fol. 8. The Trinity is call'd a New God, indefinite, Tripersonate, a God, which none of the Prophets or Patriarchs ever knew of; which Christ never revealed, nor the Apostles ever preach'd.
He styles our Blessed Saviour Christus tergeminus, p. 14. of his Printed Book; and in his Epistle to the Sons of the Church tells them, Christ was transform'd into One, which was not the Son of God. Pag. 15. he calls him the Son of the Father; that is, says he, of a meer empty Relation *Did the Father beget a Mode and call it his Son? says Dr. Sh. Vin. Trin. p. 84.: Then calls him a Tripartite Metamorphos'd Christ. God the Father he calls a fruitless, idle, unknown God. But perhaps it will be said, that these Railleries were design'd only against us, not against the Mystery it self. It is true, indeed, that Gentilis does generally endeavour to throw his Scandals upon us, and bespatter our Doctrine with these abusive terms; yet it can't be deny'd, but that he is so profane, as in a vast many places plainly to condemn the Word Trinity, although he makes use of it himself, as is clearly prov'd by his Epistle to the King of Poland; where, in the sixth Page, he complains, that there were several Monstrous and *Dr Sherlock perfectly agrees with him in this Assertion.Profane terms brought into the Church, such as foreign, Person, Essence, Unity, Trinity, whereby all the Holy Mysteries of Religion were overturn'd, and the knowledge of the Eternal God, with his Son, and Holy Ghost, was quite lost. In this charge he was led on by Gregorius Paulus, who calls these two Phrases, viz. The One Essence of God, and One God in three Persons the Inventions and cunning Contrivance of the Devil. But however, since the Phrases these Men endeavour to explode, have been the constant Language of the Church, I think it needs no other demonstration, to prove that Gentilis is not only Profane in his Expressions, but makes use also of Diabolical Stratagems [to overthrow the Establish'd Doctrine] of the Church.
But the last and most plausible Argument, which they use, is this: Gentilis complains to King Sigismund, that Luther, Zuinglius and Bucer, were wholly taken up in demolishing the Outworks of Antichrist; and that, amongst so many thousand Reformers, only Philip had attempted any thing in this Glorious Undertaking; and that too so indirectly, that he seem'd rather to threaten its ruin, than to have given it any deadly wound. To the same purpose Gregorius Paulus says, That God began by Luther to demolish the church of Antichrist at the Roof, not at the Foundation, left the noisome stench of the Ruins should have stifled them. And all this is, because they left the Doctrine of the Trinity unattacked; therefore they are said by them to have begun at the Outworks, and the Roof, not at the principal Fort and Foundation of Antichrist. Thus these Witty Gentlemen are pleas'd to sport amongst themselves. Yet, after all, it is certain, that their quarrelling with these Words is only to find some means to escape; and therefore it is, that they fall so foul upon the Blessed Labours of those Good Men. Then they interpret every thing as they please, and take the liberty of condemning whatever makes against them; and hence it is, that they endeavour to refine and new model the Language and Expressions of the Church, which being a task far above their weak abilities, [rather than seem to be Nonplust] they despitefully scatter such horrid Expressions and bitter Calumnies, as no good Christian can hear without horrour and astonishment. His Book to the King of Poland is fraught with such Elegancies and Ornaments as these, and his common Discourse was wont to be set off with the like Embellishments; so that he seems to please himself, and hopes to raise his Reputation by this means.