Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| He convicts Eunomius of having used of the Only-begotten terms applicable to the existence of the earth, and thus shows that his intention is to prove the Son to be a being mutable and created.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
§2.
He convicts Eunomius of having used of the Only-begotten terms
applicable to the existence of the earth, and thus shows that his
intention is to prove the Son to be a being mutable and
created.
And this he shows very plainly
by his contention against our arguments, where he says that “the
essence of the Son came into being from the Father, not put forth by
way of extension, not separated from its conjunction with Him that
generated Him by flux or division, not perfected by way of growth, not
transformed by way of change, but obtaining existence by the mere will
of the Generator.” Why, what man whose mental senses are not
closed up is left in ignorance by this utterance that by these
statements the Son is being represented by Eunomius as a part of the
creation? What hinders us from saying all this word for word as it
stands, about every single one of the things we contemplate in
creation? Let us apply, if you will, the definition to any of the
things that appear in creation, and if it does not admit the same
sequence, we will condemn ourselves for having examined the definition
slightingly, and not with the care that befits the truth. Let us
exchange, then, the name of the Son, and so read the definition word by
word. We say that the essence of the earth came into being from
the Father, not separated by way of extension or division from its
conjunction with Him Who generated it, nor perfected by way of growth,
nor put forth by way of change, but obtaining existence by the mere
will of Him Who generated it. Is there anything in what we have said
that does not apply to the existence of the earth? I think no one would
say so: for God did not put forth the earth by being extended, nor
bring its essence into existence by flowing or by dissevering Himself
from conjunction with Himself, nor did He bring it by means of gradual
growth from being small to completeness of magnitude, nor was He
fashioned into the form of earth by undergoing mutation or alteration,
but His will sufficed Him for the existence of all things that were
made: “He spake and they were generated616
,” so that even the name of
“generation” does not fail to accord with the existence of
the earth. Now if these things may be truly said of the parts of the
universe, what doubt is still left as to our adversaries’
doctrine, that while, so far as words go, they call Him
“Son,” they represent Him as being one of the things that
came into existence by creation, set before the rest only in precedence
of order? just as you might say about the trade of a smith, that
from it
come all things that are wrought out of iron; but that the instrument
of the tongs and hammer, by which the iron is fashioned for use,
existed before the making of the rest; yet, while this has precedence
of the rest, there is not on that account any difference in respect of
matter between the instrument that fashions and the iron that is shaped
by the instrument, (for both one and the other are iron,) but the one
form is earlier than the other. Such is the theology of heresy touching
the Son,—to imagine that there is no difference between the Lord
Himself and the things that were made by Him, save the difference in
respect of order.
Who that is in any sense classed
among Christians admits that the definition617
| 617 The
force of λόγος here
appears to be nearly equivalent to “idea,” in the sense of
an exact expression of the nature of a thing. Gulonius renders it by
“ratio.” | of
the essence of the parts of the world, and of Him Who made the world,
is the same? For my own part I shudder at the blasphemy, knowing that
where the definition of things is the same neither is their nature
different. For as the definition of the essence of Peter and John and
other men is common and their nature is one, in the same way, if the
Lord were in respect of nature even as the parts of the world, they
must acknowledge that He is also subject to those things, whatever they
may be, which they perceive in them. Now the world does not last for
ever: thus, according to them, the Lord also will pass away with the
heaven and the earth, if, as they say, He is of the same kind with the
world. If on the other hand He is confessed to be eternal, we must
needs suppose that the world too is not without some part in the Divine
nature, if, as they say, it corresponds with the Only-begotten in the
matter of creation. You see where this fine process of inference makes
the argument tend, like a stone broken off from a mountain ridge and
rushing down-hill by its own weight. For either the elements of the
world must be Divine, according to the foolish belief of the Greeks, or
the Son must not be worshipped. Let us consider it thus. We say that
the creation, both what is perceived by the mind, and that which is of
a nature to be perceived by sense, came into being from nothing: this
they declare also of the Lord. We say that all things that have been
made consist by the will of God: this they tell us also of the
Only-begotten. We believe that neither the angelic creation nor the
mundane is of the essence of Him that made it: and they make Him also
alien from the essence of the Father. We confess that all things serve
Him that made them: this view they also hold of the Only-begotten.
Therefore, of necessity, whatever else it may be that they conceive of
the creation, all these attributes they will also attach to the
Only-begotten: and whatever they believe of Him, this they will also
conceive of the creation: so that, if they confess the Lord as God,
they will also deify the rest of the creation. On the other hand, if
they define these things to be without share in the Divine nature, they
will not reject the same conception touching the Only-begotten also.
Moreover no sane man asserts Godhead of the creation. Then
neither—I do not utter the rest, lest I lend my tongue to the
blasphemy of the enemy. Let those say what consequence follows, whose
mouth is well trained in blasphemy. But their doctrine is evident even
if they hold their peace. For one of two things must necessarily
happen:—either they will depose the Only-begotten God, so that
with them He will no more either be, or be called so: or, if they
assert Godhead of Him, they will equally assert it of all
creation:—or, (for this is still left to them,) they will shun
the impiety that appears on either side, and take refuge in the
orthodox doctrine, and will assuredly agree with us that He is not
created, that they may confess Him to be truly God.
What need is there to take time
to recount all the other blasphemies that underlie his doctrine,
starting from this beginning? For by what we have quoted, one who
considers the inference to be drawn will understand that the father of
falsehood, the maker of death, the inventor of wickedness, being
created in a nature intellectual and incorporeal, was not by that
nature hindered from becoming what he is by way of change. For the
mutability of essence, moved either way at will, involves a capacity of
nature that follows the impulse of determination, so as to become that
to which its determination leads it. Accordingly they will define the
Lord as being capable even of contrary dispositions, drawing Him down
as it were to a rank equal with the angels, by the conception of
creation618
| 618 The
argument appears to be this:—The Anomœans assert, on the
ground that He is created, that the Son’s essence is τρεπτὸν, liable to change; where there is the possibility of change, the
nature must have a capacity of inclining one way or the other,
according to the balance of will determining to which side the nature
shall incline: and that this is the condition of the angels may be seen
from the instance of the fallen angels, whose nature was inclined to
evil by their προαίρεσις. It follows that to say the Son is τρεπτὸς implies that He is on a level with the angelic nature, and
might fall even as the angels fell. | . But let them listen to the great voice
of Paul. Why is it that he says that He alone has been called Son?
Because He is not of the nature of angels, but of that which is
more excellent. “For unto which of the angels said He at any
time, ‘Thou art My Son, This day have I begotten Thee’? and
when again He bringeth the first-begotten into the world He saith,
‘And let all the angels of God worship Him.’ And of the
angels He saith, ‘Who maketh His angels spirits, and His
ministers a flame
of fire’: but of the Son He saith, ‘Thy throne, O God, is
for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy
kingdom619
| 619 Cf. Heb. i. 4, and foll. It is to be noted that Gregory connects
πάλιν in v. 6, with εἰσαγάγῃ, not treating it, as the A.V. does, as simply introducing
another quotation. This appears from his later reference to the
text. | ,’” and all else that the prophecy
recites together with these words in declaring His Godhead. And he adds
also from another Psalm the appropriate words, “Thou, Lord, in
the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens
are the works of Thine hands,” and the rest, as far as “But
Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail620
,” whereby he describes the immutability
and eternity of His nature. If, then, the Godhead of the Only-begotten
is as far above the angelic nature as a master is superior to his
slaves, how do they make common either with the sensible creation Him
Who is Lord of the creation, or with the nature of the angels Him Who
is worshipped by them621
| 621 Oehler’s punctuation here seems to be
unsatisfactory. | , by detailing,
concerning the manner of His existence, statements which will properly
apply to the individual things we contemplate in creation, even as we
already showed the account given by heresy, touching the Lord, to be
closely and appropriately applicable to the making of the
earth?E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
