Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| He explains the phrase “The Lord created Me,” and the argument about the origination of the Son, the deceptive character of Eunomius' reasoning, and the passage which says, “My glory will I not give to another,” examining them from different points of view.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
§10. He explains the
phrase “The Lord created Me,” and the argument about the
origination of the Son, the deceptive character of Eunomius’
reasoning, and the passage which says, “My glory will I not give
to another,” examining them from different points of
view.
But of course they bring forward
the passage in the book of Proverbs which says, “The Lord created
Me as the beginning of His ways, for His works367
| 367 Prov. viii.
22 (LXX.). The versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus (to one
or more of which perhaps §9 refers), all render the Hebrew
by ἐκτήσατο (“possessed”), not by ἔκτισε (“created”). But Gregory may be referring to mss. of the LXX. version which read ἐκτήσατο. It is clear from what follows that Mr. Gwatkin is hardly
justified in his remark (Studies of Arianism, p. 69), that
“the whole discussion on Prov. viii.
22 (LXX.), Κύριος
ἔκτισέ με,
κ.τ.λ., might have been avoided by a glance at the original.” The
point of the controversy might have been changed, but that would have
been all. Gregory seems to feel that ἐκτήσατο requires an explanation, though he has one ready. | .” Now it would require a lengthy
discussion to explain fully the real meaning of the passage: still it
would be possible even in a few words to convey to well-disposed
readers the thought intended. Some of those who are accurately versed
in theology do say this, that the Hebrew text does not read
“created,” and we have ourselves read in more ancient
copies “possessed” instead of “created.” Now
assuredly “possession” in the allegorical language of the
Proverbs marks that slave Who for our sakes “took upon Him the
form of a slave368
.” But if any
one should allege in this passage the reading which prevails in the
Churches, we do not reject even the expression “created.”
For this also in allegorical language is intended to connote the
“slave,” since, as the Apostle tells us, “all
creation is in bondage369
.” Thus we say
that this expression, as well as the other, admits of an orthodox
interpretation. For He Who for our sakes became like as we are, was in
the last days truly created,—He Who in the beginning being
Word and God afterwards became Flesh and Man. For the nature of flesh
is created: and by partaking in it in all points like as we do, yet
without sin, He was created when He became man: and He was created
“after God370
,” not after
man, as the Apostle says, in a new manner and not according to human
wont. For we are taught that this “new man” was
created—albeit of the Holy Ghost and of the power of the
Highest—whom Paul, the hierophant of unspeakable mysteries, bids
us to “put on,” using two phrases to express the garment
that is to be put on, saying in one place, “Put on the new man
which after God is created371
,” and in
another, “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ372
.” For thus it is that He, Who said
“I am the Way373
,” becomes to us
who have put Him on the beginning of the ways of salvation, that He may
make us the work of His own hands, new modelling us from the evil mould
of sin once more to His own image. He is at once our foundation before
the world to come, according to the words of Paul, who says,
“Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid374
,” and it is true that “before the
springs of the waters came forth, before the mountains were settled,
before He made the depths, and before all hills, He begetteth Me375
.” For it is possible,
according
to the usage of the Book of Proverbs, for each of these phrases, taken
in a tropical sense, to be applied to the Word376
. For
the great David calls righteousness the “mountains of God377
,” His judgments “deeps378
,” and the teachers in the Churches
“fountains,” saying “Bless God the Lord from the
fountains of Israel379
”; and
guilelessness he calls “hills,” as he shows when he speaks
of their skipping like lambs380
. Before these
therefore is born in us He Who for our sakes was created as man, that
of these things also the creation may find place in us. But we may, I
think, pass from the discussion of these points, inasmuch as the truth
has been sufficiently pointed out in a few words to well-disposed
readers; let us proceed to what Eunomius says next.
“Existing in the
Beginning,” he says, “not without beginning.” In what
fashion does he who plumes himself on his superior discernment
understand the oracles of God? He declares Him Who was in the beginning
Himself to have a beginning: and is not aware that if He Who is in the
beginning has a beginning, then the Beginning itself must needs have
another beginning. Whatever He says of the beginning he must
necessarily confess to be true of Him Who was in the beginning: for how
can that which is in the beginning be severed from the beginning? and
how can any one imagine a “was not” as preceding the
“was”? For however far one carries back one’s thought
to apprehend the beginning, one most certainly understands as one does
so that the Word which was in the beginning (inasmuch as It cannot be
separated from the beginning in which It is) does not at any point of
time either begin or cease its existence therein. Yet let no one be
induced by these words of mine to separate into two the one beginning
we acknowledge. For the beginning is most assuredly one, wherein is
discerned, indivisibly, that Word Who is completely united to the
Father. He who thus thinks will never leave heresy a loophole to impair
his piety by the novelty of the term “ungenerate.” But in
Eunomius’ next propositions his statements are like bread with a
large admixture of sand. For by mixing his heretical opinions with
sound doctrines, he makes uneatable even that which is in itself
nutritious, by the gravel which he has mingled with it. For he calls
the Lord “living wisdom,” “operative truth,”
subsistent power, and “life”:—so far is the
nutritious portion. But into these assertions he instils the poison of
heresy. For when he speaks of the “life” as
“generate” he makes a reservation by the implied opposition
to the “ungenerate” life, and does not affirm the Son to be
the very Life. Next he says:—“As Son of God, quickening the
dead, the true light, the light that lighteneth every man coming into
the world381
, good, and the bestower of good
things.” All these things he offers for honey to the
simple-minded, concealing his deadly drug under the sweetness of terms
like these. For he immediately introduces, on the heels of these
statements, his pernicious principle, in the words “Not
partitioning with Him that begat Him His high estate, not dividing with
another the essence of the Father, but becoming by generation glorious,
yea, the Lord of glory, and receiving glory from the Father, not
sharing His glory with the Father, for the glory of the Almighty is
incommunicable, as He hath said, ‘My glory will I not give to
another.382
’” These are his deadly
poisons, which they alone can discover who have their souls’
senses trained so to do: but the mortal mischief of the words is
disclosed by their conclusion:—Receiving glory from the Father,
not sharing glory with the Father, for the glory of the Almighty is
incommunicable, as He hath said, ‘My glory will I not give to
another.’ Who is that “other” to whom God has said
that He will not give His glory? The prophet speaks of the adversary of
God, and Eunomius refers the prophecy to the only begotten God Himself!
For when the prophet, speaking in the person of God, had said,
“My glory will I not give to another,” he added,
“neither My praise to graven images.” For when men were
beguiled to offer to the adversary of God the worship and adoration due
to God alone, paying homage in the representations of graven images to
the enemy of God, who appeared in many shapes amongst men in the forms
furnished by idols, He Who healeth them that are sick, in pity for
men’s ruin, foretold by the prophet the loving-kindness which in
the latter days He would show in the abolishing of idols, saying,
“When My truth shall have been manifested, My glory shall no more
be given to another, nor My praise bestowed upon graven images: for
men, when they come to know My glory, shall no more be in bondage to
them that by nature are no gods.” All therefore that the prophet
says in the person of the Lord concerning the power of the adversary,
this fighter against God, refers to the Lord Himself, Who spake these
words by the prophet! Who among the tyrants is recorded to have been
such a persecutor of the faith as this? Who maintained such blasphemy
as this, that He Who, as we believe, was manifested in the flesh for
the salvation of our souls, is not very God, but the adversary of God,
who puts his guile into effect against men by the instrumentality of idols and
graven images? For it is what was said of that adversary by the prophet
that Eunomius transfers to the only-begotten God, without so much as
reflecting that it is the Only-begotten Himself Who spoke these words
by the prophet, as Eunomius himself subsequently confesses when he
says, “this is He Who spake by the prophets.”
Why should I pursue this part of
the subject in more detail? For the words preceding also are tainted
with the same profanity—“receiving glory from the Father,
not sharing glory with the Father, for the glory of the Almighty God is
incommunicable.” For my own part, even had his words referred to
Moses who was glorified in the ministration of the Law,—not even
then should I have tolerated such a statement, even if it be conceded
that Moses, having no glory from within, appeared completely glorious
to the Israelites by the favour bestowed on him from God. For the very
glory that was bestowed on the lawgiver was the glory of none other but
of God Himself, which glory the Lord in the Gospel bids all to seek,
when He blames those who value human glory highly and seek not the
glory that cometh from God only383
. For by the fact that
He commanded them to seek the glory that cometh from the only God, He
declared the possibility of their obtaining what they sought. How then
is the glory of the Almighty incommunicable, if it is even our duty to
ask for the glory that cometh from the only God, and if, according to
our Lord’s word, “every one that asketh receiveth384
?” But one who says concerning the
Brightness of the Father’s glory, that He has the glory by having
received it, says in effect that the Brightness of the glory is in
Itself devoid of glory, and needs, in order to become Himself at last
the Lord of some glory, to receive glory from another. How then are we
to dispose of the utterances of the Truth,—one which tells us
that He shall be seen in the glory of the Father385
,
and another which says, “All things that the Father hath are
Mine386
”? To whom ought the hearer to give ear?
To him who says, “He that is, as the Apostle says, the
‘heir of all things387
’ that are in
the Father, is without part or lot in His Father’s glory”;
or to Him Who declares that all things that the Father hath, He Himself
hath also? Now among the “all things,” glory surely is
included. Yet Eunomius says that the glory of the Almighty is
incommunicable. This view Joel does not attest, nor yet the mighty
Peter, who adopted, in his speech to the Jews, the language of the
prophet. For both the prophet and the apostle say, in the person of
God,—“I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh388
.” He then Who did not grudge the
partaking in His own Spirit to all flesh,—how can it be that He
does not impart His own glory to the only-begotten Son, Who is in the
bosom of the Father, Who has all things that the Father has? Perhaps
one should say that Eunomius is here speaking the truth, though not
intending it. For the term “impart” is strictly used in the
case of one who has not his glory from within, whose possession of it
is an accession from without, and not part of his own nature: but where
one and the same nature is observed in both Persons, He Who is as
regards nature all that the Father is believed to be stands in no need
of one to impart to Him each several attribute. This it will be well to
explain more clearly and precisely. He Who has the Father dwelling in
Him in His entirety—what need has He of the Father’s glory,
when none of the attributes contemplated in the Father is withdrawn
from Him?E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
