Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Then, distinguishing between essence and generation, he declares the empty and frivolous language of Eunomius to be like a rattle. He proceeds to show that the language used by the great Basil on the subject of the generation of the Only-begotten has been grievously slandered by Eunomius, and so ends the book.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
§9. Then,
distinguishing between essence and generation, he declares the empty
and frivolous language of Eunomius to be like a rattle. He proceeds to
show that the language used by the great Basil on the subject of the
generation of the Only-begotten has been grievously slandered by
Eunomius, and so ends the book.
I will pass by these matters,
however, as the absurdity involved is evident; let us examine what
precedes. He says that nothing else is found, “besides the
essence of the Son, which admits of the generation.” What does he
mean when he says this? He distinguishes two names from each other, and
separating by his discourse the things signified by them, he sets each
of them individually apart by itself. “The generation” is
one name, and “the essence” is another. The essence, he
tells us, “admits of the generation,” being therefore of
course something distinct from the generation. For if the generation
were the essence (which is the very thing he is constantly declaring),
so that the two appellations are equivalent in sense, he would not have
said that the essence “admits of the generation”: for that
would amount to saying that the essence admits of the essence, or the
generation the generation,—if, that is, the generation were the
same thing as the essence. He understands, then, the generation to be
one thing, and the essence to be another, which “admits of
generation”: for that which is taken cannot be the same with that
which admits it. Well, this is what the sage and systematic statement
of our author says: but as to whether there is any sense in his words,
let him consider who is expert in judging. I will resume his actual
words.
He says that he finds
“nothing else besides the essence of the Son which
admits of the generation”; that there is no sense in his words
however, is clear to every one who hears his statement at all: the task
which remains seems to be to bring to light the blasphemy which he is
trying to construct by aid of these meaningless words. For he desires,
even if he cannot effect his purpose, to produce in his hearers by this
slackness of expression, the notion that the essence of the Son is the
result of construction: but he calls its construction
“generation,” decking out his horrible blasphemy with the
fairest phrase, that if “construction” is the meaning
conveyed by the word “generation,” the idea of the creation
of the Lord may receive a ready assent. He says, then, that the essence
“admits of generation,” so that every construction may be
viewed, as it were, in some subject matter. For no one would say that
that is constructed which has no existence, so extending
“making” in his discourse, as if it were some constructed
fabric, to the nature of the Only-begotten God679
| 679 This
whole passage, as it stands in Oehler’s text, (which has here
been followed without alteration,) is obscure: the connection between
the clauses themselves is by no means clear; and the general meaning of
the passage, in view of the succeeding sentences, seems doubtful. For
it seems here to be alleged that Eunomius considered the κατασκεύη
to imply the previous existence of some material, so
to say, which was moulded by generation—on the ground that no one
would say that the essence, or anything else, was constructed without
being existent. On the other hand it is immediately urged that this is
just what would be said of all created things. If the passage might be
emended thus:—ἵν᾽,
ὥσπερ ἐν
ὑποκειμένῳ
τινὶ
πράγματι
πᾶσα
κατασκεύη
θεωρεῖται, (οὐ
γὰρ ἄν τις
ἔιποι
κατασκεύασθαι
ὃ μὴ
ὑφέστηκεν),
οὕτως οἷον
κατασκευάσματι
τῇ τοῦ
μονογενοῦς
φύσει
προτείνῃ τῷ
λόγῳ τὴν
ποίησιν—we should have a comparatively clear sense—“in
order that as all construction is observed in some subject matter, (for
no one would say that that is constructed which has not existence) so
he may extend the process of ‘making’ by his argument to
the nature of the Only-begotten God, as to some product of
construction.” The force of this would be, that Eunomius is
really employing the idea of “receiving generation,” to
imply that the essence of the Only-begotten is a κατασκεύασμα: and this, Gregory says, puts him at once on a level with
the physical creation. | .
“If, then,” he says, “it admits of this
generation,”—wishing to convey some such meaning as this,
that it would not have been, had it not been constructed. But what else
is there among the things we contemplate in the creation which
is without being made? Heaven, earth, air, sea, everything
whatever that is, surely is by being made. How, then, comes it
that he considered it a peculiarity in the nature of the Only begotten,
that it “admits generation” (for this is his name for
making) “into its actual essence,” as though the humble-bee
or the gnat did not admit generation into itself680
| 680 Oehler’s punctuation seems faulty here. | ,
but into something else besides itself. It is therefore acknowledged by
his own writings, that by them the essence of the Only-begotten is
placed on the same level with the smallest parts of the creation: and
every proof by which he attempts to establish the alienation of the Son
from the Father has the same force also in the case of individual
things. What need has he, then, for this varied acuteness to establish
the diversity of nature, when he ought to have taken the short cut of
denial, by openly declaring that the name of the Son ought not to be
confessed, or the Only-begotten God to be preached in the churches, but
that we ought to esteem the Jewish worship as superior to the faith of
Christians, and, while we confess the Father as being alone Creator and
Maker of the world, to reduce all other things to the name and
conception of the creation, and among these to speak of that work which
preceded the rest as a “thing made,” which came into being
by some constructive operation, and to give Him the title of
“First created,” instead of Only-begotten and Very Son. For
when these opinions have carried the day, it will be a very easy matter
to bring doctrines to a conclusion in agreement with the aim they have
in view, when all are guided, as you might expect from such a
principle, to the consequence that it is impossible that He Who is
neither begotten nor a Son, but has His existence through some energy,
should share in essence with God. So long, however, as the declarations
of the Gospel prevail, by which He is proclaimed as “Son,”
and “Only-begotten,” and “of the Father,” and
“of God,” and the like, Eunomius will talk his nonsense to
no purpose, leading himself and his followers astray by such idle
chatter. For while the title of “Son” speaks aloud the true
relation to the Father, who is so foolish that, while John and Paul and
the rest of the choir of the Saints proclaim these words,—words
of truth, and words that point to the close affinity,—he does not
look to them, but is led by the empty rattle of Eunomius’
sophisms to think that Eunomius is a truer guide than the teaching of
these who by the Spirit speak mysteries681
, and
who bear Christ in themselves? Why, who is this Eunomius? Whence was he
raised up to be the guide of Christians?
But let all this pass, and let
our earnestness about what lies before us calm down our heart, that is
swollen with jealousy on behalf of the faith against the blasphemers.
For how is it possible not to be moved to wrath and hatred, while our
God, and Lord, and Life-giver, and Saviour is insulted by these
wretched men? If he had reviled my father according to the flesh, or
been at enmity with my benefactor, would it have been possible to bear
without emotion his anger against those I love? And if the Lord of my
soul, Who gave it being when it was not, and redeemed it when in
bondage, and gave me to taste of this present life, and prepared for me
the life to come, Who calls us to a kingdom, and gives us His commands
that we may escape the damnation of hell,—these are small things
that I speak of, and not worthy to express the greatness of
our common Lord—He that is worshipped by all creation, by things
in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, by Whom
stand the unnumbered myriads of the heavenly ministers, to Whom is
turned all that is under rule here, and that has the desire of
good—if He is exposed to reviling by men, for whom it is not
enough to associate themselves with the party of the apostate, but who
count it loss not to draw others by their scribbling into the same gulf
with themselves, that those who come after may not lack a hand to lead
them to destruction, is there any one682
| 682 Reading ἇρά τις for ἆρα τίς of Oehler’s text. | who blames us
for our anger against these men? But let us return to the sequence of
his discourse.
He next proceeds once more to
slander us as dishonouring the generation of the Son by human
similitudes, and mentions what was written on these points by our
father683
| 683 That
is, by S. Basil: the reference seems to be to the treatise Adv.
Eunomium ii. 24 (p. 260 C. in the Benedictine edition), but the
quotation is not exact. | , where he says that while by the word
“Son” two things are signified, the being formed by
passion, and the true relationship to the begetter, he does not admit
in discourses upon things divine the former sense, which is unseemly
and carnal, but in so far as the latter tends to testify to the glory
of the Only-begotten, this alone finds a place in the sublime
doctrines. Who, then, dishonours the generation of the Son by human
notions? He who sets far from the Divine generation what belongs to
passion and to man, and joins the Son impassibly to Him that begat Him?
or he who places Him Who brought all things into being on a common
level with the lower creation? Such an idea, however, as it
seems,—that of associating the Son in the majesty of the
Father,—this new wisdom seems to regard as dishonouring; while it
considers as great and sublime the act of bringing Him down to equality
with the creation that is in bondage with us. Empty complaints! Basil
is slandered as dishonouring the Son, who honours Him even as he
honours the Father684
, and Eunomius is the
champion of the Only-begotten, who severs Him from the good nature of
the Father! Such a reproach Paul also once incurred with the Athenians,
being charged therewith by them as “a setter forth of strange
gods685
,” when he was reproving the wandering
among their gods of those who were mad in their idolatry, and was
leading them to the truth, preaching the resurrection by the Son. These
charges are now brought against Paul’s follower by the new Stoics
and Epicureans, who “spend their time in nothing else,” as
the history says of the Athenians, “but either to tell or to hear
some new thing686
.” For what could be found newer
than this,—a Son of an energy, and a Father of a creature, and a
new God springing up from nothing, and good at variance with good?
These are they who profess to honour Him with due honour by saying that
He is not that which the nature of Him that begat Him is. Is Eunomius
not ashamed of the form of such honour, if one were to say that he
himself is not akin in nature to his father, but has community with
something of another kind? If he who brings the Lord of the creation
into community with the creation declares that he honours Him by so
doing, let him also himself be honoured by having community assigned
him with what is brute and senseless: but, if he finds community with
an inferior nature hard and insolent treatment, how is it honour for
Him Who, as the prophet saith, “ruleth with His power for ever687
,” to be ranked with that nature which
is in subjection and bondage? But enough of this.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
