Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Explanation of 'Ungenerate,' and a 'study' of Eternity.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
§42. Explanation of
‘Ungenerate,’ and a ‘study’ of
Eternity.
The eternity of God’s
life, to sketch it in mere outline, is on this wise. He is always to be
apprehended as in existence; He admits not a time when He was not, and
when He will not be. Those who draw a circular figure in plane geometry
from a centre to the distance of the line of circumference tell us
there is no definite beginning to their figure; and that the line is
interrupted by no ascertained end any more than by any visible
commencement: they say that, as it forms a single whole in itself with
equal radii on all sides, it avoids giving any indication of beginning
or ending. When, then, we compare the Infinite being to such a figure,
circumscribed though it be, let none find fault with this account; for
it is not on the circumference, but on the similarity which the figure
bears to the Life which in every direction eludes the grasp, that we
fix our attention when we affirm that such is our intuition of the
Eternal. From the present instant, as from a centre and a
“point,” we extend thought in all directions, to the
immensity of that Life. We find that we are drawn round uninterruptedly
and evenly, and that we are always following a circumference where
there is nothing to grasp; we find the divine life returning upon
itself in an unbroken continuity, where no end and no parts can be
recognized. Of God’s eternity we say that which we have
heard from prophecy227
; viz.. that God is a
king “of old,” and rules for ages, and for ever, and
beyond. Therefore we define Him to be earlier than any beginning, and
exceeding any end. Entertaining, then, this idea of the Almighty, as
one that is adequate, we express it by two titles; i.e.,
‘Ungenerate’ and ‘Endless’ represent this
infinitude and continuity and ever-lastingness of the Deity. If we
adopted only one of them for our idea, and if the remaining one was
dropped, our meaning would be marred by this omission; for it is
impossible with either one of them singly228
to
express the notion residing in each of the two; but when one speaks of
the ‘endless,’ only the absence as regards an end has been
indicated, and it does not follow that any hint has been given about a
beginning; while, when one speaks of the ‘Unoriginate229
,’ the fact of being beyond a beginning
has been expressed, but the case as regards an end has been left quite
doubtful.
Seeing, then, that these two
titles equally help to express the eternity of the divine life, it is
high time to inquire why our friends cut in two the complete meaning of
this eternity, and declare that the one meaning, which is the negation
of beginning, constitutes God’s being (instead of merely forming
part of the definition of eternity230
| 230 οὐ περὶ τὸ
αΐδιον
θεωρεῖσθαι | ), while they
consider the other, which is the negation of end, as amongst the
externals of that being. It is difficult to see the reason for thus
assigning the negation of beginning to the realm of being, while they
banish the negation of end outside that realm. The two are our
conceptions of the same thing; and, therefore, either both should be
admitted to the definition of being, or, if the one is to be judged
inadmissible, the other should be rejected also. If, however, they are
determined thus to divide the thought of eternity, and to make the one
fall within the realm of that being, and to reckon the other with the
non-realities of Deity (for the thoughts which they adopt on this
subject are grovelling, and, like birds who have shed their feathers,
they are unable to soar into the sublimities of theology), I would
advise them to reverse their teaching, and to count the unending as
being, overlooking the unoriginate rather, and assigning the palm to
that which is future and excites hope, rather than to that which is
past and stale. Seeing, I say (and I speak thus owing to their
narrowness of spirit, and lower the discussion to the level of a
child’s conception), the past period of his life is nothing to
him who has lived it, and all his interest is centred on the future and
on that which can be looked forward to, that which has no end will have
more value than that which has no beginning. So let our thoughts upon
the divine nature be worthy and exalted ones; or else, if they are
going to judge of it according to human tests, let the future be more
valued by them than the past, and let them confine the being of the
Deity to that, since time’s lapse sweeps away with it all
existence in the past, whereas expected existence gains substance from
our hope231
.
Now I broach these ridiculously
childish suggestions as to children sitting in the market-place and
playing232
; for when one looks into the grovelling
earthliness of their heretical teaching it is impossible to help
falling into a sort of sportive childishness. It would be right,
however, to add this to what we have said, viz., that, as the idea of
eternity is completed only by means of both (as we have already
argued), by the negation of a beginning and also by that of an end, if
they confine God’s being to the one, their definition of this
being will be manifestly imperfect and curtailed by half; it is thought
of only by the absence of beginning, and does not contain the absence
of end within itself as an essential element. But if they do combine
both negations, and so complete their definition of the being of God,
observe, again, the absurdity that is at once apparent in this view; it
will be found, after all their efforts, to be at variance not only with
the Only-begotten, but with itself. The case is clear and does not
require much dwelling upon. The idea of a beginning and the idea of an
end are opposed each to each; the meanings of each differ as widely as
the other diametric oppositions233
| 233 κατὰ
διάμετρον
ἀλλήλοις
ἀντικειμένων, i.e. Contradictories in Logic. | , where there is no
half-way proposition below234
| 234 As in A
or E, both of which have the Particular below them (I or O) as a
half-way to the contrary Universal. Thus—
A I E
All men are mortal. Some men are mortal. No men are mortal.
E O A
No men are mortal. Some men
are not mortal. All men are mortal.
But between A and O, E and
I, there is no half-way. | . If any one is asked
to define ‘beginning,’ he will not give a definition the
same as that of end; but will carry his definition of it to the
opposite extremity. Therefore also the two contraries235
| 235 Beginning (Contraries) Beginningless.
Endless (Contraries)
Ending. | of these will be separated
from each other by the same distance of opposition; and that which is
without beginning, being contrary to that which is to be seen by a
beginning, will be a very different thing from that which is endless,
or the negation of end. If, then, they import both these attributes
into the being of God, I mean the negations of end and of beginning,
they will exhibit this Deity of theirs as a combination of two
contradictory and discordant things, because the contrary ideas
to beginning and end reproduce on their side also the
contradiction existing between beginning and end. Contraries of
contradictories are themselves contradictory of each other. In fact, it
is always a true axiom, that two things which are naturally opposed to
two things mutually opposite are themselves opposed to each other; as
we may see by example. Water is opposed to fire; therefore also the
forces destructive of these are opposed to each other; if moistness is
apt to extinguish fire, and dryness is apt to destroy water, the
opposition of fire to water is continued in those qualities themselves
which are contrary to them; so that dryness is plainly opposed to
moistness. Thus, when beginning and end have to be placed
(diametrically) opposite each other236
| 236 ὑπεναντίως
διακειμένων. The same term has been used to express the opposition
between Ungenerate and Generated: so that it means both Oppositions,
i.e. Contraries and Contradictories. | , the terms
contrary to these also contradict each other in their meaning, I mean,
the negations of end and of beginning. Well, then, if they determine
that one only of these negations is indicative of the being (to repeat
my former assertion), they will bear evidence to half only of
God’s existence, confining it to the absence of beginning, and
refusing to extend it to the absence of end; whereas, if they import
both into their definition of it, they will actually exhibit it so as a
combination of contradictions in the way that has been said; for these
two negations of beginning and of end, by virtue of the contradiction
existing between beginning and end, will part it asunder. So their
Deity will be found to be a sort of patchwork compound, a conglomerate
of contradictions.
But there is not, neither shall
there be, in the Church of God a teaching such as that, which can make
One who is single and incomposite not only multiform and patchwork, but
also the combination of opposites. The simplicity of the True Faith
assumes God to be that which He is, viz., incapable of being grasped by
any term, or any idea, or any other device of our apprehension,
remaining beyond the reach not only of the human but of the angelic and
of all supramundane intelligence, unthinkable, unutterable, above all
expression in words, having but one name that can represent His proper
nature, the single name of being ‘Above every name237
| 237 Philip. ii. 9. ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ
πᾶν ὄνομα. | ’; which is granted to the Only-begotten
also, because “all that the Father hath is the
Son’s.” The orthodox theory allows these words, I mean
“Ungenerate,” “Endless,” to be indicative of
God’s eternity, but not of His being; so that
“Ungenerate” means that no source or cause lies beyond Him,
and “Endless” means that His kingdom will be brought to a
standstill in no end. “Thou art the same,” the prophet
says, “and Thy years shall not fail238
,” showing by “art” that He
subsists out of no cause, and by the words following, that the
blessedness of His life is ceaseless and unending.
But, perhaps, some one amongst
even very religious people will pause over these investigations of ours
upon God’s eternity, and say that it will be difficult from what
we have said for the Faith in the Only-begotten to escape unhurt. Of
two unacceptable doctrines, he will say, our account239
| 239 Adopting ὁ λόγος from the Venice Cod. (ἑνὶ
πάντως ὁ
λόγος
συνενεχθήσεται). The verb cannot be impersonal: and τις above, the
only available nominative, does not suit the sense very
well.
Gregory constructs this
scheme of Opposition after the analogy of Logical Opposition.
Beginning is not so opposed to Beginning-less, as it is to Ending,
because with the latter there is no half-way, i.e. no word of
definition in common. |
must inevitably be brought into contact with one. Either we shall make
out that the Son is Ungenerate, which is absurd; or else we shall deny
Him Eternity altogether, a denial which that fraternity of
blasphemers make their specialty. For if Eternity is characterized by
having no beginning and end, it is inevitable either that we must be
impious and deny the Son Eternity, or that we must be led in our secret
thoughts about Him into the idea of Ungeneracy. What, then, shall we
answer? That if, in conceiving of the Father before the Son on the
single score of causation, we inserted any mark of time before the
subsistence of the Only-begotten, the belief which we have in the
Son’s eternity might with reason be said to be endangered. But,
as it is, the Eternal nature, equally in the case of the Father’s
and the Son’s life, and, as well, in what we believe about the
Holy Ghost, admits not of the thought that it will ever cease to be;
for where time is not, the “when” is annihilated with it.
And if the Son, always appearing with the thought of
the Father, is always found in the category of existence, what danger
is there in owning the Eternity of the Only-begotten, Who “hath
neither beginning of days, nor end of life240
.” For as He is Light from Light, Life
from Life, Good from Good, and Wise, Just, Strong, and all else in the
same way, so most certainly is He Eternal from Eternal.
But a lover of controversial
wrangling catches up the argument, on the ground that such a sequence
would make Him Ungenerate from Ungenerate. Let him, however, cool his
combative heart, and insist upon the proper expressions, for in
confessing His ‘coming from the Father’ he has banished all
ideas of Ungeneracy as regards the Only-begotten; and there will be
then no danger in pronouncing Him Eternal and yet not Ungenerate. On
the one hand, because the existence of the Son is not marked by any
intervals of time, and the infinitude of His life flows back before the
ages and onward beyond them in an all-pervading tide, He is properly
addressed with the title of Eternal; again, on the other hand, because
the thought of Him as Son in fact and title gives us the thought of the
Father as inalienably joined to it, He thereby stands clear of an
ungenerate existence being imputed to Him, while He is always with a
Father Who always is, as those inspired words of our Master expressed
it, “bound by way of generation to His Father’s
Ungeneracy.” Our account of the Holy Ghost will be the same also;
the difference is only in the place assigned in order. For as the Son
is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not
substantially after Him, so again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the
Only-begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit’s
subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause241
| 241 τὸν τῆς
αἰτίας
λόγον. This is much
more probably the meaning, because of before above, than
“on the score of the different kind of causation” (Non omne
quod procedat nascitur, quamvis omne procedat quod nascitur. S.
August.). It is a direct testimony to the ‘Filioque’
belief. “The Spirit comes forth with the Word, not begotten with
Him, but being with and accompanying and proceeding from Him.”
Theodoret. Serm. II. | .
Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that,
when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no
single way exhibits discord with itself; and to It is glory
due.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
