Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Lastly he displays at length the folly of Eunomius, who at times speaks of the Holy Spirit as created, and as the fairest work of the Son, and at other times confesses, by the operations attributed to Him, that He is God, and thus ends the book.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
§15. Lastly he displays at length the folly of Eunomius,
who at times speaks of the Holy Spirit as created, and as the fairest
work of the Son, and at other times confesses, by the operations
attributed to Him, that He is God, and thus ends the
book.
He goes on to add,
“Neither on the same level with the Father, nor connumerated with
the Father (for God over all is one and only Father), nor on an
equality with the Son, for the Son is only-begotten, having none
begotten with Him.” Well, for my own part, if he had only added
to his previous statement the remark that the Holy Ghost is not the
Father of the Son, I should even then have thought it idle for him to
linger over what no one ever doubted, and forbid people to form notions
of Him which not even the most witless would entertain. But since he
endeavours to establish his impiety by irrelevant and unconnected
statements, imagining that by denying the Holy Spirit to be the Father
of the Only-begotten he makes out that He is subject and subordinate, I
therefore made mention of these words, as a proof of the folly of the
man who imagines that he is demonstrating the Spirit to be subject to
the Father on the ground that the Spirit is not Father of the
Only-begotten. For what compels the conclusion, that if He be not
Father, He must be subject? If it had been demonstrated that
“Father” and “despot” were terms identical in
meaning, it would no doubt have followed that, as absolute sovereignty
was part of the conception of the Father, we should affirm that the
Spirit is subject to Him Who surpassed Him in respect of authority. But
if by “Father” is implied merely His relation to the Son,
and no conception of absolute sovereignty or authority is involved by
the use of the word, how does it follow, from the fact that the Spirit
is not the Father of the Son, that the Spirit is subject to the Father?
“Nor on an equality with the Son,” he says. How comes he to
say this? for to be, and to be unchangeable, and to admit no evil
whatsoever, and to remain unalterably in that which is good, all this
shows no variation in the case of the Son and of the Spirit. For the
incorruptible nature of the Spirit is remote from corruption equally
with that of the Son, and in the Spirit, just as in the Son, His
essential goodness is absolutely apart from its contrary, and in both
alike their perfection in every good stands in need of no
addition.
Now the inspired Scripture
teaches us to affirm all these attributes of the Spirit, when it
predicates of the Spirit the terms “good,” and
“wise,” and “incorruptible,” and
“immortal,” and all such lofty conceptions and names as are
properly applied to Godhead. If then He is inferior in none of these
respects, by what means does Eunomius determine the inequality of the
Son and the Spirit? “For the Son is,” he tells us,
“Only-begotten, having no brother begotten with Him.” Well,
the point, that we are not to understand the
“Only-begotten” to have brethren, we have already discussed
in our comments upon the phrase “first-born of all creation484
| 484 See
above, §8 of this book. | .” But we ought not to leave unexamined
the sense that Eunomius now unfairly attaches to the term. For while
the doctrine of the Church declares that in the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost there is one power, and goodness, and essence, and
glory, and the like, saving the difference of the Persons, this man,
when he wishes to make the essence of the Only-begotten common to the
creation, calls Him “the first-born of all creation” in
respect of His pre-temporal existence, declaring by this mode of
expression that all conceivable objects in creation are in brotherhood
with the Lord; for assuredly the first-born is not the first-born of
those otherwise begotten, but of those begotten like Himself485
| 485 Or,
“not the first-born of beings of a different race, but of those
of his own stock.” | . But when he is bent upon severing the Spirit
from union with the Son, he calls Him “Only-begotten, not having
any brother begotten with Him,” not with the object of conceiving
of Him as without brethren, but that by the means of this assertion he
may establish touching the Spirit His essential alienation from the
Son. It is true that we learn from Holy Scripture not to speak of the
Holy Ghost as brother of the Son: but that we are not to say that the
Holy Ghost is homogeneous486
| 486 ὁμογενῆ,
“of the same stock”: the word being the same which (when
coupled with ἀδελφὸν) has been translated, in the passages preceding, by
“begotten with.” | with the Son, is
nowhere shown in the divine Scriptures. For if there does reside in the
Father and the Son a life-giving power, it is ascribed also to the Holy
Spirit, according to the words of the Gospel. If one may discern alike
in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the properties of being incorruptible,
immutable, of admitting no evil, of being good, right, guiding, of
working all in all as He wills, and all the like attributes, how is it
possible by identity in these respects to infer difference in kind?
Accordingly the word of godliness agrees in affirming that we ought not
to regard any kind of brotherhood as attaching to the Only-begotten;
but to say that the Spirit is not homogeneous with the Son, the upright
with the upright, the good with the good, the life-giving with the
life-giving, this has been clearly demonstrated by logical inference to
be a piece of heretical knavery.
Why then is the majesty of the
Spirit curtailed by such arguments as these? For there is
nothing which can be the cause of producing in him deviation by excess or
defect from conceptions such as befit the Godhead, nor, since all these
are by Holy Scripture predicated equally of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, can he inform us wherein he discerns inequality to exist. But
he launches his blasphemy against the Holy Ghost in its naked form,
ill-prepared and unsupported by any consecutive argument. “Nor
yet ranked,” he says, “with any other: for He has gone
above487
| 487 ἀναβέβηκε: the word apparently is intended by Eunomius to have the
force of “transcended”; Gregory, later on, criticizes its
employment in this sense. | all the creatures that came into being by the
instrumentality of the Son in mode of being, and nature, and glory, and
knowledge, as the first and noblest work of the Only-begotten, the
greatest and most glorious.” I will leave, however, to others the
task of ridiculing the bad taste and surplusage of his style, thinking
as I do that it is unseemly for the gray hairs of age, when dealing
with the argument before us, to make vulgarity of expression an
objection against one who is guilty of impiety. I will just add to my
investigation this remark. If the Spirit has “gone above”
all the creations of the Son, (for I will use his own ungrammatical and
senseless phrase, or rather, to make things clearer, I will present his
idea in my own language) if he transcends all things wrought by the
Son, the Holy Spirit cannot be ranked with the rest of the creation;
and if, as Eunomius says, he surpasses them by virtue of priority of
birth, he must needs confess, in the case of the rest of creation, that
the objects which are first in order of production are more to be
esteemed than those which come after them. Now the creation of the
irrational animals was prior to that of man. Accordingly he will of
course declare that the irrational nature is more honourable than
rational existence. So too, according to the argument of Eunomius, Cain
will be proved superior to Abel, in that he was before him in time of
birth, and so the stars will be shown to be lower and of less
excellence than all the things that grow out of the earth; for these
last sprang from the earth on the third day, and all the stars are
recorded by Moses to have been created on the fourth. Well, surely no
one is such a simpleton as to infer that the grass of the earth is more
to be esteemed than the marvels of the sky, on the ground of its
precedence in time, or to award the meed to Cain over Abel, or to place
below the irrational animals man who came into being later than they.
So there is no sense in our author’s contention that the nature
of the Holy Spirit is superior to that of the creatures that came into
being subsequently, on the ground that He came into being before they
did. And now let us see what he who separates Him from fellowship with
the Son is prepared to concede to the glory of the Spirit: “For
he too,” he says, “being one, and first and alone, and
surpassing all the creations of the Son in essence and dignity of
nature, accomplishing every operation and all teaching according to the
good pleasure of the Son, being sent by Him, and receiving from Him,
and declaring to those who are instructed, and guiding into
truth.” He speaks of the Holy Ghost as “accomplishing every
operation and all teaching.” What operation? Does he mean that
which the Father and the Son execute, according to the word of the Lord
Himself Who “hitherto worketh488
”
man’s salvation, or does he mean some other? For if His work is
that named, He has assuredly the same power and nature as Him Who works
it, and in such an one difference of kind from Deity can have no place.
For just as, if anything should perform the functions of fire, shining
and warming in precisely the same way, it is itself certainly fire, so
if the Spirit does the works of the Father, He must assuredly be
acknowledged to be of the same nature with Him. If on the other hand He
operates something else than our salvation, and displays His operation
in a contrary direction, He will thereby be proved to be of a different
nature and essence. But Eunomius’ statement itself bears witness
that the Spirit quickeneth in like manner with the Father and the Son.
Accordingly, from the identity of operations it results assuredly that
the Spirit is not alien from the nature of the Father and the Son. And
to the statement that the Spirit accomplishes the operation and
teaching of the Father according to the good pleasure of the Son we
assent. For the community of nature gives us warrant that the will of
the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, and thus, if the
Holy Spirit wills that which seems good to the Son, the community of
will clearly points to unity of essence. But he goes on, “being
sent by Him, and receiving from Him, and declaring to those who are
instructed, and guiding into truth.” If he had not previously
said what he has concerning the Spirit, the reader would surely have
supposed that these words applied to some human teacher. For to receive
a mission is the same thing as to be sent, and to have nothing of
one’s own, but to receive of the free favour of him who gives the
mission, and to minister his words to those who are under instruction,
and to be a guide into truth for those that are astray. All these
things, which Eunomius is good enough to allow to the Holy Spirit,
belong to the present pastors and teachers of the Church,—to be
sent, to receive, to announce, to teach, to suggest the truth. Now, as he had
said above “He is one, and first, and alone, and surpassing
all,” had he but stopped there, he would have appeared as a
defender of the doctrines of truth. For He Who is indivisibly
contemplated in the One is most truly One, and first Who is in the
First, and alone Who is in the Only One. For as the spirit of man that
is in him, and the man himself, are but one man, so also the Spirit of
God which is in Him, and God Himself, would properly be termed One God,
and First and Only, being incapable of separation from Him in Whom He
is. But as things are, with his addition of his profane phrase,
“surpassing all the creatures of the Son,” he produces
turbid confusion by assigning to Him Who “breatheth where He
willeth489
,” and “worketh all in all490
,” a mere superiority in comparison with
the rest of created things.
Let us now see further what he
adds to this “sanctifying the saints.” If any one says this
also of the Father and of the Son, he will speak truly. For those in
whom the Holy One dwells, He makes holy, even as the Good One makes men
good. And the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are holy and good, as
has been shown. “Acting as a guide to those who approach the
mystery.” This may well be said of Apollos who watered what Paul
planted. For the Apostle plants by his guidance491
| 491 If we
read κατηχσέως
for the καθηγησέως
of Oehler’s text we have a clearer sense,
“the Apostle plants by his instruction.” | , and
Apollos, when he baptizes, waters by Sacramental regeneration, bringing
to the mystery those who were instructed by Paul. Thus he places on a
level with Apollos that Spirit Who perfects men through baptism.
“Distributing every gift.” With this we too agree; for
everything that is good is a portion of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
“Co-operating with the faithful for the understanding and
contemplation of things appointed.” As he does not add by whom
they are appointed, he leaves his meaning doubtful, whether it is
correct or the reverse. But we will by a slight addition advance his
statement so as to make it consistent with godliness. For since,
whether it be the word of wisdom, or the word of knowledge, or faith,
or help, or government, or aught else that is enumerated in the lists
of saving gifts, “all these worketh that one and the self-same
Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will492
,” we therefore do not reject the
statement of Eunomius when he says that the Spirit “co-operates
with the faithful for understanding and contemplation of things
appointed” by Him, because by Him all good teachings are
appointed for us. “Sounding an accompaniment to those who
pray.” It would be foolish seriously to examine the meaning of
this expression, of which the ludicrous and meaningless character is at
once manifest to all. For who is so demented and beside himself as to
wait for us to tell him that the Holy Spirit is not a bell nor an empty
cask sounding an accompaniment and made to ring by the voice of him who
prays as it were by a blow? “Leading us to that which is
expedient for us.” This the Father and the Son likewise do: for
“He leadeth Joseph like a sheep493
,” and,
“led His people like sheep494
,” and,
“the good Spirit leadeth us in a land of righteousness495
.” “Strengthening us to
godliness.” To strengthen man to godliness David says is the work
of God; “For Thou art my strength and my refuge496
,” says the Psalmist, and “the
Lord is the strength of His people497
,” and,
“He shall give strength and power unto His people498
.” If then the expressions of Eunomius
are meant in accordance with the mind of the Psalmist, they are a
testimony to the Divinity of the Holy Ghost: but if they are opposed to
the word of prophecy, then by this very fact a charge of blasphemy lies
against Eunomius, because he sets up his own opinions in opposition to
the holy prophets. Next he says, “Lightening souls with the light
of knowledge.” This grace also the doctrine of godliness ascribes
alike to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. For He is
called a light by David499
, and from thence the
light of knowledge shines in them who are enlightened. In like manner
also the cleansing of our thoughts of which the statement speaks is
proper to the power of the Lord. For it was “the brightness of
the Father’s glory, and the express image of His person,”
Who “purged our sins500
.” Again, to
banish devils, which Eunomius says is a property of the Spirit, this
also the only-begotten God, Who said to the devil, “I charge
thee501
,” ascribes to the power of the Spirit,
when He says, “If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils502
,” so that the expulsion of devils is
not destructive of the glory of the Spirit, but rather a demonstration
of His divine and transcendent power. “Healing the sick,”
he says, “curing the infirm, comforting the afflicted, raising up
those who stumble, recovering the distressed.” These are the
words of those who think reverently of the Holy Ghost, for no one would
ascribe the operation of any one of these effects to any one except to
God. If then heresy affirms that those things which it belongs to none
save God alone to effect, are wrought by the power of the Spirit, we
have in support of the truths for which we are contending the witness
even of our adversaries. How does the Psalmist seek his healing
from God, saying,
“Have mercy upon me, O Lord, for I am weak; O Lord, heal me, for
my bones are vexed503
!” It is to God
that Isaiah says, “The dew that is from Thee is healing unto
them504
.” Again, prophetic language attests
that the conversion of those in error is the work of God. For
“they went astray in the wilderness in a thirsty land,”
says the Psalmist, and he adds, “So He led them forth by the
right way, that they might go to the city where they dwelt505
:” and, “when the Lord turned
again the captivity of Sion506
.” In like
manner also the comfort of the afflicted is ascribed to God, Paul thus
speaking, “Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, Who comforteth us in all our tribulation507
.” Again, the Psalmist says, speaking in
the person of God, “Thou calledst upon Me in trouble and I
delivered thee508
.” And the setting upright of
those who stumble is innumerable times ascribed by Scripture to the
power of the Lord: “Thou hast thrust sore at me that I might
fall, but the Lord was my help509
,” and
“Though he fall, he shall not be cast away, for the Lord
upholdeth him with His hand510
,” and
“The Lord helpeth them that are fallen511
.” And to the loving-kindness of God
confessedly belongs the recovery of the distressed, if Eunomius means
the same thing of which we learn in prophecy, as the Scripture says,
“Thou laidest trouble upon our loins; Thou sufferedst men to ride
over our heads; we went through fire and water, and Thou broughtest us
out into a wealthy place512
.”
Thus far then the majesty of the
Spirit is demonstrated by the evidence of our opponents, but in what
follows the limpid waters of devotion are once more defiled by the mud
of heresy. For he says of the Spirit that He “cheers on those who
are contending”: and this phrase involves him in the charge of
extreme folly and impiety. For in the stadium some have the task of
arranging the competitions between those who intend to show their
athletic vigour; others, who surpass the rest in strength and skill,
strive for the victory and strip to contend with one another, while the
rest, taking sides in their good wishes with one or other of the
competitors, according as they are severally disposed towards or
interested in one athlete or another, cheer him on at the time of the
engagement, and bid him guard against some hurt, or remember some trick
of wrestling, or keep himself unthrown by the help of his art. Take
note from what has been said to how low a rank Eunomius degrades the
Holy Spirit. For while on the course there are some who arrange the
contests, and others who settle whether the contest is conducted
according to rule, others who are actually engaged, and yet others who
cheer on the competitors, who are acknowledged to be far inferior to
the athletes themselves, Eunomius considers the Holy Spirit as one of
the mob who look on, or as one of those who attend upon the athletes,
seeing that He neither determines the contest nor awards the victory,
nor contends with the adversary, but merely cheers without contributing
at all to the victory. For He neither joins in the fray, nor does He
implant the power to contend, but merely wishes that the athlete in
whom He is interested may not come off second in the strife. And so
Paul wrestles “against principalities, against powers, against
the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness
in high places513
,” while the Spirit of power does
not strengthen the combatants nor distribute to them His gifts,
“dividing to every man severally as He will514
,” but His influence is limited to
cheering on those who are engaged.
Again he says,
“Emboldening the faint-hearted.” And here, while in
accordance with his own method he follows his previous blasphemy
against the Spirit, the truth for all that manifests itself, even
through unfriendly lips. For to none other than to God does it belong
to implant courage in the fearful, saying to the faint-hearted,
“Fear not, for I am with thee, be not dismayed515
,” as says the Psalmist, “Yea
though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no
evil, for Thou art with me516
.” Nay, the Lord
Himself says to the fearful,—“Let not your heart be
troubled, neither let it be afraid517
,” and,
“Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith518
?” and, “Be of good cheer, it is
I, be not afraid519
,” and again,
“Be of good cheer: I have overcome the world520
.” Accordingly, even though this may not
have been the intention of Eunomius, orthodoxy asserts itself by means
even of the voice of an enemy. And the next sentence agrees with that
which went before:—“Caring for all, and showing all concern
and forethought.” For in fact it belongs to God alone to care and
to take thought for all, as the mighty David has expressed it, “I
am poor and needy, but the Lord careth for me521
.” And if what remains seems to be
resolved into empty words, with sound and without sense, let no one
find fault, seeing that in most of what he says, so far as any sane
meaning is concerned, he is feeble and untutored. For what on earth he
means when he says, “for the onward leading of the better
disposed and the guardianship of the more faithful,” neither he
himself, nor they who senselessly admire his follies, could possibly
tell us.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
