Valentinus Gentilis – The Tritheist Put to Death In Bern, Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
What was the Opinion of Arius, and wherein Gentilis and he do agree.
BUT since it is yet disputed by many, what was the Heresie of Arius; it will therefore be worth our while briefly to enquire into his Opinions. Especially since matters are now come to such a pass, that Men dare openly avouch, That he was not Condemn'd for allowing the Father only to be God, but rather for asserting the Son of God to be a mere Creature. Here are then two Propositions, (Viz.)
First, That the Son of God was a Creature. Arius asserted this, but Gentilis doth not.
Secondly, That the Father alone is the One Most High God, who dwells in Light inaccessible. This Gentilis does affirm, but Arius seems not to have Asserted it. Gentilis takes a great deal of pains in stating the difference between these two Positions, to avoid (if possible) falling in with Arius. However if his Assertion be true, and it belongs only to the Father to be styl'd the One only God, I cannot for my part see any reason why he and Arius should keep at such a distance. For according to Gentilis he would have said nothing but truth, seeing he was never call'd in question by the Fathers, for calling Christ the Son of God; since that Assertion of his was true and undoubtedly Orthodox.
But if the difference be only in Words, and the sense of both Propositions be the same, there needs no proof, that they agree in their Notions. To make this appear, let us enquire in what manner Arius his Opinion has been deliver'd down to us. We find in Theodor. l. 1. cap. 4. Alexander Bishop of Alexandria making complaint, that Arius and Achilles denied the Divinity of Christ. His Words are these, foreign, i. e. Denying the Divinity of our Saviour, and making him of the same Nature with all other Men; and presently after, They attribute to him (says he) a Temporal Beginning. For thus speaks Arius himself. foreign, i. e. There was a time when the Son of God was not, &c. His Opinion is related after the same manner, Hist. Trip. lib. 1. cap. 13. Deus, say they, non semper Pater fuit, non semper fuit Dei verbum, sed fuit, quando Deus non Pater fuit, Dei autem verbum ex non existentibus factum fuit, &c. i. e. God was not always a Father, nor did the Word always exist, but there was a time, when God was not a Father, and the Word was made out of nothing. To the same purpose Nicephorus, lib. 8. cap. 8. Deus non semper Pater erat, sed erat cùm Deus Pater non erat. Non semper igitur Dei verbum erat, sed ex non existentibus factum est. Qui enim erat Deus, illum, qui non erat, ex non existente fecit, &c. You may see more to this purpose in the same Book, lib. 8. c. 18. From all which it does appear, that Arius did in the first place divide the Essence of God, making one Essence of the Father, and another of the Son, and after that assigning only a temporal Original to the Son; and therefore he so earnestly condemn'd the foreign, that he might carry his Point for the Separation of Essence. And deny'd the co-eternity of the Son, that he might thereby establish the Notion of his temporal Original. From hence follow'd more monstrous Absurdities, viz. That the Son of God was a mere Creature; and that he was made out of nothing. For they were very well satisfied, that the Essence of God being the most simple, and withal the most perfect of any, could admit of no gradual division, and therefore they assign'd the Son a separate Essence.
And now 'tis easie to discover, wherein he and Gentilis agree. Arius said, That there was One Essence or Substance of the Father, and another of the Son: Gentilis distinguisheth the Father from the Son not only in Person or Hypostasis, but in Essence or Substance also. Nor doth it at all alter the case, in that he saith, The Word was begotten of the Substance of the Father; and is consubstantial with him: In which, 'tis confess'd, he differs from Arius, but nevertheless introduces a separation of Substance. Arius then says, The Son was made out of nothing: This Man tells us he was not made out of nothing, but out of the Substance of the Father. But in this they both agree, That [quoad essentiam] as to his Substance the Son is Numerically distinct from the Father. We are told by Niceph. lib. 18. c. 47, 48. that Philoponus a famous Philosopher drove on the same Argument. For by dividing the Indivisible Nature of God, into more Persons, he ascrib'd it to them severally, as to Individuals, and distributed it to those three Subsistences of a Supersubstantial Nature. He was likewise a great Champion of the Monophysites, who, by reason there was but one Hypostasis or Person in Christ, asserted that he had but one foreign, or Nature also, which was made of both the Divine and Humane, as on the contrary Nestorius from the two Natures of Christ concluded, that he likewise must necessarily have two Hypostases or Persons.
Again, Arius asserted, That the Father only was Eternal, but that the Word had a beginning; which likewise was the Opinion of the Philosophers Philoponus and Themistius; see Niceph. lib. 18. c. 50.
Gentilis tells us, The Son of God was begotten by a precedent act of Generation; which if true, then must his being begotten have succeeded in order of time. To prove this he doth with his usual confidence quote that passage of Tertullin. Non ideo Pater & judex semper, quia Deus semper. Nam nec Pater potuit esse ante filium, nec judex ante delictum. Fuit autem tempus cum ei delictum, & filius non fuit, i. e. God is not therefore always a Father and a Judge, because he always was God. For he could not be a Father before he had a Son, neither could he be a Judge, before there was a Criminal. But there was a time, when neither Criminal nor Son did exist. In this Opinion he agrees with Tertullian, and by consequence is a Partizan of Arius. For it signifies not a farthing, from whom this Sentence is quoted, whether from Tertullian or any body else, since it's plain it gives us the true Sentiments of Arius.
From what has been said, it appears, That Arius and he are of the same Opinion in these two particulars, (Viz.)
1. In dividing the Substance or Essence of the Godhead. And.
2. In making the Act of Generation in order of time antecedent to the Existence of the Son, which exactly agrees with the foreign of Arius.