Valentinus Gentilis – The Tritheist Put to Death In Bern, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
Concerning the Generation of the Son of God, and how we ought to understand the Words foreign and foreign.
IN the next place Gentilis appeals to those Texts of Scripture, wherein the Generation of the Son of God is reveal'd to us, as Iohn 1. We saw his Glory, the Glory as of the only Begotten of God; and Psal. 2. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; which place is cited by St. Paul, Act. 13. and the Apostle 1 Heb. 5. Then Gentilis farther concludes, That Begotten is therefore distinguish'd from Unbegotten, because the one hath always a beginning, the other hath none. Again, that the Father is therefore call'd ingenitus [Unbegotten] because he derives his Original from none; but all things had their Beings from him. But the Son is therefore said to be Begotten, because he had his beginning from the Father; upon which account the Father is styl'd the Essentiator Being, and the Son the Essentiated Spirit.
This is his way of Arguing; and, I think, any one, that has but half an Eye, may plainly see how Arius his Argument lies couch'd under it. For whosoever hath read Nicephorus, Theodoret, and the other Ecclesiastical Writers, cannot be ignorant, that this was the very Argument Arius and his Followers made use of. In Answer to which, we freely allow and acknowledge the Generation of the Son of God, and readily grant that the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten; but moreover we assert that this Generation was without beginning of Time, and is of such a Nature, as transcends the Capacities and Apprehensions of all Mortal Men. For the Word was in the Beginning, and all things were made by him; which Word is afterwards call'd the Only begotten Son of God. Of the same Word the Prophet speaks, when he says, The dew of thy birth is of the womb of the Moruing; which passage the Jews themselves confess to have been spoken with respect to the Eternal Generation of the Messias. Therefore Gentilis his Argument is by no means conclusive; This way of Generation being wholly inexplicable, and without any beginning of Time; by consequence there is no prius nor posterius, no succession in it, but the whole coeternal together.
How audacious then is the Mind of Man, that dares pry into and endeavour to explain these hidden things of God? If neither Ear hath heard, nor Eye seen, neither hath it enter'd into the Heart of Man to conceive those things, which God hath prepared for them that love him, How much more ought that Mystery of the Eternal Son of God, and that of his Eternal Generation, rather to be ador'd than fathom'd? But let us see, how the Ancients express'd their thoughts about this matter. Theodoret, in Book 4. cap. 1. tells us, foreign, i. e. That God did not beget his Son in time, nor after a certain season or period: and in the same place he calls it foreign, an Immutable Filiation. Again he confesses, the Son of God was begotten, but it was, foreign, in an unspeakable, inexpressible, inconceiveable, undeterminable manner, by which words it plainly appears, that the Ancients look'd upon this as a very great unfathomable Mystery. They did likewise call it foreign, thereby to shew that his Generation was without beginning, as may be seen in Damascene and in Theodoret, in the place above cited. And Socrates in his 1. l. c. 8. has a passage importing the very same thing. foreign, says he, foreign, i. e. By a mode of Generation inexpressible and unconceiveable by any created Nature. From all which I think we may well conclude, the Manner of the Generation of the Son of God to be truly ineffable, incomprehensible, and undeterminable. Whereby it follows, that the Word was begotten out of all time, and before all time; That the Son was always with the Father; That God always was a Father; and that there never was any time, wherein the Son was not. As for any other ways of explaining this Generation, the Catholick Church, and all Christian Writers, Iustin Martyr, Irenoeus, and others, have constantly rejected and exploded them. A few of which I shall just glance upon.
Some would have the Son to descend from the Father foreign, by division; Theod: l. 1. c. 6.This seems to have been the Opinion of Philosophers, who parted the Divine Essence into several Persons; just as if out of the same Mass of Gold you would cleave two or three Bars, or as you would divide any one totum into two or three parts. Sic foreign dicitur foreign.
Others were for having it to be foreign, i. e. by Germination, as we see Scions bud out from Trees.
Others thought it might be foreign, by efflux or emanation, as Children are naturally begotten of their Parents.
Others call'd it foreign (i. e.) by eructation, as may be seen from Arius his Epistle in Theod. l. 1. c. 6. And lastly there were others, who believ'd it to be foreign, or by alteration of Substance. See Socr. Book 1. c. 6.
All these ways were rejected by Antiquity, and the Arians too, tho' for a different reason; namely, that they might hereby explode the foreign, or Consubstantiality. Of which see Nicephor. l. 8. c. 18. Their Argument ran thus; The Son of God is not born of the Father, neither foreign, nor foreign, nor foreign, nor foreign, nor yet foreign, Ergo he is not foreign, or of the same Substance with the Father, because what is such, must be so some of these ways.
To which we Answer, That there is another way or method, which they have past over, and which alone the Catholick Church hath approved of; that is, foreign, or by Immanence, or else foreign, by Communication of his whole Nature to the Son, who is therefore foreign, Consubstantial with the Father. And to manifest the coeternity, the Fathers still call'd it foreign and foreign, unspeakable, and incomprehensible.
Which Phrases are certainly most Ancient, since we find them in Iustin Martyr [an Author immediately after the first Century], who frequently condemns and refutes those other expressions, foreign, The parting, as it were, of the Divine ☜Essence of the Father] or, as their Followers were pleas'd to term it, foreign. He condemns those likewise who affirm the Son to have been born either foreign, or foreign: the former I take to be the same with foreign or Germination, the latter to signifie foreign or efflux; tho' foreign and foreign do import the same. Thus much I thought necessary to repeat concerning the manner of the Generation of God the Son; that it might the better appear, what terms and expressions were us'd by the Ancients, and withal how boldly and rashly this unsearchable Mystery is treated of by the Men of the present Age.
Now, as it doth not follow, that because he that begets, is one, and he that is begotten, is another, therefore the Substance or Essence of the Father is one, and the Substance or Essence of the Son is another; so neither doth it follow, that because he that begets is one, and he that is begotten, is another; therefore the Word, which was begotten, must have been in time after him, that did beget him; This being nothing else but quibbling about the ambiguity of a Word, as the Arians of old were us'd to do. For upon the whole we do not deny, but foreign is proper to the Father, Augustin lib. 15. de Trin. cap. 17. Vide Erasmi Observat.foreign proper to the Son, provided the Words be taken in their due sence.
And therefore, to avoid all mistakes about them, let it be observ'd, that First, foreign doth signifie one that hath no manner of original at all; foreign denotes him that is begotten of a Father. In this sence the Father alone [in himself] is said to be unbegotten foreign, because there is not any thing from whence he derives his Original; and in the same manner the Son may be said to be foreign, in as much as he was begotten by the Father after an ineffable manner; and in this sence these terms may very well be applied without any absurdity; we may safely call as well Father as the Holy Ghost foreign, since neither of them had a Father; and the Son only foreign, as being begotten of the Father. Secondly, foreign, or rather foreign, may signifie the same with foreign, i. e. not Created. In this sence the Philosophers call the Elements foreign, because they are the first Principles; and in the same manner the Creator is distinguish'd from his Creatures; he is foreign, and they are styl'd foreign: and in this sence 'tis plain, that Christ cannot be call'd foreign, he being not made, i. e. foreign, as is the whole indivisible Divine Nature *Which may be Communicated indeed, but yet not Made, nor Created, according to this latter sence of the Word..
Lastly, If foreign be oppos'd to foreign in respect of Time, i. e. as that which never had a beginning, but was from all Eternity, is oppos'd to that which came after, and had its beginning in time; in this sence 'tis plain all the three Persons in the Godhead must be ingenite; since none of them had their beginning in time, but were before all time.
And therefore these Propositions, The Son is Begotten, and only the Father is Unbegotten, are not simpliciter *Viz. in all the Senses of the Word., or absolutely to be granted, since in one respect the Son also is Unbegotten, i. e. without Beginning.