Valentinus Gentilis – The Tritheist Put to Death In Bern, Chapter 11 – Chapter 12
CHAP. XI.
Containing the Iudgment and Consent of Scripture with respect to this Article.
THese false Doctrines of Gentilis have ever been condemn'd by the universal consent both of Scripture and the true Church; which consent is plainly and in short, as follows, viz. The Essence of God is but One, in which one Essence the Scripture sets forth to us three Hypostases or Subsistences, to wit, of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; so that we acknowledge neither three Gods, nor any division *Nor Multiplication.of the Essence [of God.] The Son and the Holy Ghost are so Consubstantial with the Father, that they with him are One, true, eternal, infinite God. Nor is the appellation or title of the One most high God proper only to the Father exclusive of the Son and Holy Ghost. This, I say, is the Judgment and Consent of the Scripture and the true Church. For God is to be Worshipp'd in the same manner, that he hath reveal'd himself, and so the Church hath always Worshipp'd him; but he hath declar'd himself to be One, i. e. a Being in Substance or foreign One, subsisting by himself, Eternal, Wise, Good, &c. but hath manifested himself in three Persons or Hypostases.
That his Essence is but One, will appear from many plain Testimonies, as 1 Deut. 6. Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God. 1 Cor. 8. We know that there is but one God. Eph. 4. There is one God. Deut. 4. The Lord [Jehovah] he is God, and there is none else besides him. Therefore he hath declar'd himself to be but One. But that He hath likewise reveal'd himself as subsisting in three Persons, is plain from Mark 1. and Mat. 3. where, in the Baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are expresly mention'd: And so likewise in the Institution of Baptism, Mat. 28. Mark 16. Nor can we be put off by that evasion of Gentilis, whereby he refers all this only to the Agreement and Consent of the Persons. We do not deny that there is such a Consent of Will; *And of Mutual Consciousness too.but we say, that besides this, there is an Unity of Essence. Wherefore this Doctrine doth remain more firm and unshaken, than a Rock of Marble; namely, That God has declar'd himself to be One in Essence, subsisting in three Persons; so that a Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, is to be Worshipped. And this is the only true way of Worshipping God.
And in this sence the Church hath still Interpreted the Scripture and the Apostles Creed. I Believe in God, who is One; that is to say, foreign in Essence; where presently after is added, by way of Explication, an enumeration of all the Persons, that it might appear, who that One God Almighty was; namely, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Consequently Gentilis his Exposition must be false, who makes this distinction; I believe in God the Father, and restrains the Word God to the Father only. I say this is a Sophistical Exposition arising from a mistaken distinction.
Neither have the Nicene, nor Athanasian Creeds, or any of the Orthodox, ever understood it in this sence. Wherefore the Son and H. Ghost are the true and one God with God the Father, and are so set forth to us in Scripture, as often as mention is made of the One true God, Iehovah, or Lord of Israel.
Mark 10. Christ saith to the Rich Young Man, None is Good save God only; where if we admit Gentilis his Opinion to be true, the Argument must run thus; None is good, but one that is God; but the Father only is the only God, therefore the Father only is Good. For Christ speaks exclusively, Why callest thou me good? foreign. One God, is the proper appellation only of the Father; Therefore the Father only is Good.
Nor will he be ever able to extricate himself out of this Labyrinth, unless he doth affirm, that Christ may be said to be good also by Communication, but the Father only to be properly and originally Good; which is intolerable Blasphemy, for it distinguisheth Christ from his Goodness, as well as from his Divinity.
But the true way of Arguing would have been thus: He that is properly and of himself, good, must necessarily be the one true, and only God; (which we gather from Christ's own Words, None is good but the One God.) But the Son and H. Ghost are properly and per se 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 goodness, and hold it at his Pleasure. All the Cavils about the Father alone's being the one Only God do wholly vanish, and are dispell'd by this one Argument. Besides this, there are several other Testimonies to be found in the Scripture; as in Isaiah 44. The One God is said to be the first and the last; which Noble Character Gentilis understands to have been given only to the Father, but he is confuted by St. Iohn, who Revel. 1. 22, 23. gives the very same Titles to Christ; from whence we may conclude, That Christ is also comprehended under this Character of the One God. Nor shall we ever be convinc'd of the contrary, from his saying, That Christ was call'd the first and the last only in respect of the Creatures. Again, the Word in the New Testament is call'd not a fictitious, but a true God, Joh. 1. But there is but One true God, the Author both of the Old and New Covenant, therefore the Word is comprehended under the Character of the One God, who is the Author of the Covenant. Again, this One and Only God is call'd the True and Only Saviour, Is. 43. 11. But if we believe Gentilis, the Word in the New Testament is not the One and Only God, by consequence, neither will the Word be our Saviour, which is not only false, but blasphemous also. For Ioh. 1. Andrew says, We have found the Messias [speaking of Christ or the Word.] Therefore the Minor, which was of Gentilis's making, is false.
Again, There is no other God [Elohim] besides the Lord [Iehovah] but the Word (according to Gentilis) is not that One Only Isaiah 44.Lord [Iehovah] therefore he is not the true Elohim or God: which conclusion is abominably absurd, and by consequence so is that Proposition also of Gentilis, from whence it follows.
Lastly, The Word is in the New Testament call'd a Creator, Colos. 1. Ioh. 1. but that is a Propriety of the only One God, therefore the Name of the one Only God belongs to the Son also.
From these and the like places of Holy Scripture, it's easie to demonstrate how absurd and how impious a Doctrine it is to assert, That, the Father only [exclusive of the Son] is call'd the One Only God: seeing, on the contrary, it has been the constant Faith of the Church, That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are that One, True, and Only God reveal'd to us in the Scriptures; I say, One God foreign, or in Essence subsisting in three Persons. Nor need we trouble our selves with that Soveraignty of Divine Essence or foreign, since in the Trinity there is a perfect equality, none is greater or less than [none is afore or after] another. Unus & idem Deus Pater & foreign ejus semper assistens humane generi; as says Irenoeus, lib. 4. c. 47.
But that Soveraignty, which we oppose and deny, introduceth an inequality of prius & posterius, of majus & minus, or of Order and Majesty in the Divine Essence, and therefore is justly exploded. In the mean time we are not ignorant, how Christ in respect of his Human Nature, and his Office of Mediator, is inferior to the Father, and is also so styl'd in Holy Scripture. But this is nothing to the purpose, since the inequality, we expose, is not in the Persons, but the Essence of the Deity.
CHAP. XII.
Containing Gentilis his Censure of the Fathers and their Writings.
WE have now shewn our Doctrine of the Trinity to be agreeable to the sence of Scripture, and the Orthodox Creeds. We have made it plain, how Gentilis by new and forc'd Expositions doth wrest the meaning of Scripture to establish his Notions, and with like improbity doth Expound the Creeds also. For not daring to deny the Authority of the Apostles Creed, he hath by a wrong punctation falsly Interpreted it, he safely despises and rejects the other Creeds, and treats the Fathers with the same respect. He upbraids Athanasius with corrupting the Nicene Creed, and blushes not to call Athanasius his own Creed mere impertinent Jargon, pag. 30. St. Augustin he calls a Dogmatical Pedant, and others of them he bespatters with a great many more such Complements. But however, lest he should seem to have no part of Antiquity on his side, he flies to all the Ancients, and *Iust, no doubt, as his Successor Dr. Sherlock intends to do in the Account he has promised us, out of the Fathers, of his Tritheistick Hypothesis of 3 distinct Infinite Minds in the Blessed Trinity.right or wrong hales them in to vouch for him. But his principal Friends are Iustin Martyr, Ignatius, Tertullian, Irenoeus and Hilary. Yet he hath not so great a veneration for them neither, but he can upon occasion despise, reject and discard them also; so that upon the whole, he seems to claim nothing as his peculiar Talent, so much as that excellent qualification which the Greeks call foreign, a Subtile Craftiness to distinguish his Cause, by wresting the Law.
Wherefore we will now demonstrate and maintain our Doctrine out of those very Fathers he admits for Authentick; whereby it may easily be observed, how craftily he does abuse both their Authority and judgments [in order to the Establishing his own Opinion.]