Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| He then clearly and skilfully criticises the doctrine of the impossibility of comparison with the things made after the Son, and exposes the idolatry contrived by Eunomius, and concealed by the terminology of “Son” and “Only-begotten,” to deceive his readers. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
§7. He then clearly
and skilfully criticises the doctrine of the impossibility of
comparison with the things made after the Son, and exposes the idolatry
contrived by Eunomius, and concealed by the terminology of
“Son” and “Only-begotten,” to deceive his
readers.
In the remainder of the passage,
however, he becomes conciliatory, and says that the essence “is
not compared with any of the things that were made by it and after it658
658 Oehler’s proposal to read “vel invitis libris quod
sententia flagitat τῶν δἰ ἀυτοῦ
καὶ μετ᾽
αῦτὸν” does
not seem necessary. αὐτῆς and αὐτὴν refer
to οὐσία, the
quotation being made (not verbally) from Eunomius, not from
Theognostus, and following apparently the phrase about
“preserving the relation,” etc. If the clause were a
continuation of the quotation from Theognostus, we should have to
follow Oehler’s proposal. | .” Such are the gifts which the enemies
of the truth offer to the Lord659
659 Reading, according to Cotelerius’ suggestion, (mentioned
with approval by Oehler, though not followed by him,) δωροφοροῦσιν
for δορυφοροῦσιν | , by which their
blasphemy is made more manifest. Tell me what else is there of all
things in creation that admits of comparison with a different thing,
seeing that the characteristic nature that appears in each absolutely
rejects community with things of a different kind660
660 That is
to say, because there is no “common measure” of the
distinct natures. | ?
The heaven admits no comparison with the earth, nor this with the
stars, nor the stars with the seas, nor water with stone, nor animals
with trees, nor land animals with winged creatures, nor four-footed
beasts with those that swim, nor irrational with rational creatures.
Indeed, why should one take up time with individual instances, in
showing that we may say of every single thing that we behold in the
creation, precisely what was thrown to the Only-begotten, as if it were
something special—that He admits of comparison with none of the
things that have been produced after Him and by Him? For it is clear
that everything which you conceive by itself is incapable of comparison
with the universe, and with the individual things which compose it; and
it is this, which may be truly said of any creature you please, which
is allotted by the enemies of the truth, as adequate and sufficient for
His honour and glory, to the Only-begotten God! And once more, putting
together phrases of the same sort in the remainder of the passage, he
dignifies Him with his empty honours, calling Him “Lord”
and “Only-begotten”: but that no orthodox meaning may be
conveyed to his readers by these names, he promptly mixes up blasphemy
with the more notable of them. His phrase runs
thus:—“Inasmuch,” he says, “as the generated
essence leaves no room for community to anything else (for it is
only-begotten661
661 Altering Oehler’s punctuation; it is the fact that the
essence is μονογενὴς
which excludes all other things from community with
it. | ), nor is the operation of the Maker
contemplated as common.” O marvellous insolence! as though he
were addressing his harangue to brutes, or senseless beings
“which have no understanding662 ,” he
twists his argument about in contrary ways, as he pleases; or rather he
suffers as men do who are deprived of sight; for they too behave often
in unseemly ways before the eyes of those who see, supposing, because
they themselves cannot see, that they are also unseen. For what sort of
man is it who does not see the contradiction in his words? Because it
is “generated,” he says, the essence leaves other things no
room for community, for it is only-begotten; and then when he has
uttered these words, really as though he did not see or did not suppose
himself to be seen, he tacks on, as if corresponding to what he has
said, things that have nothing in common with them, coupling “the
operation of the maker” with the essence of the Only-begotten.
That which is generated is correlative to the generator, and the
Only-begotten, surely, by consequence, to the Father; and he who looks
to the truth beholds, in co-ordination with the Son, not “the
operation of the maker,” but the nature of Him that begat Him.
But he, as if he were talking about plants or seeds, or some other
thing in the order of creation, sets “the operation of the
maker” by the side of the existence663 of
the Only-begotten. Why, if a stone or a stick, or something of that
sort, were the subject of consideration, it would be logical to
pre-suppose “the operation of the maker”; but if the
Only-begotten God is confessed, even by His adversaries, to be a Son,
and to exist by way of generation, how do the same words befit Him that
befit the lowest portions of the creation? how do they think it pious
to say concerning the Lord the very thing which may be truly said of an
ant or a gnat? For if any one understood the nature of an ant, and its
peculiar ties in reference to other living things, he would not be
beyond the truth in saying that “the operation of its maker is
not contemplated as common” with reference to the other things.
What, therefore, is affirmed of such things as these, this they
predicate also of the Only-begotten, and as hunters are said to
intercept the passage of their game with holes, and to conceal their
design by covering over the mouths of the holes with some unsound and
unsubstantial material, in order that the pit may seem level with the
ground about it, so heresy contrives against men something of the same
sort, covering over the hole of their impiety with these fine-sounding
and pious names, as it were with a level thatch, so that those who are
rather unintelligent, thinking that these men’s preaching is the
same with the true faith, because of the agreement of their words,
hasten towards the mere name of the Son and the Only-begotten, and step
into emptiness in the hole, since the significance of these titles will
not sustain the weight of their tread, but lets them down into the
pitfall of the denial of Christ. This is why he speaks of the generated
essence that leaves nothing room for community, and calls it
“Only-begotten.” These are the coverings of the hole. But
when any one stops before he is caught in the gulf, and puts forth the
test of argument, like a hand, upon his discourse, he sees the
dangerous downfall of idolatry lying beneath the doctrine. For when he
draws near, as though to God and the Son of God, he finds a creature of
God set forth for his worship. This is why they proclaim high and low
the name of the Only-begotten, that the destruction may be readily
accepted by the victims of their deceit, as though one were to mix up
poison in bread, and give a deadly greeting to those who asked for
food, who would not have been willing to take the poison by itself, had
they not been enticed to what they saw. Thus he has a sharp eye to the
object of his efforts, at least so far as his own opinion goes. For if
he had entirely rejected from his teaching the name of the Son, his
falsehood would not have been acceptable to men, when his denial was
openly stated in a definite proclamation; but now leaving only the
name, and changing the signification of it to express creation, he at
once sets up his idolatry, and fraudulently hides its reproach. But
since we are bidden not to honour God with our lips664 ,
and piety is not tested by the sound of a word, but the Son must first
be the object of belief in the heart unto righteousness, and then be
confessed with the mouth unto salvation665 , and
those who say in their hearts that He is not God, even though with
their mouths they confess Him as Lord, are corrupt and became
abominable666 , as the prophet says,—for this
cause, I say, we must look to the mind of those who put forward,
forsooth, the words of the faith, and not be enticed to follow their
sound. If, then, one who speaks of the Son does not by that word refer
to a creature, he is on our side and not on the enemy’s; but if
any one applies the name of Son to the creation, he is to be ranked
among idolaters. For they too gave the name of God to Dagon and Bel and
the Dragon, but they did not on that account worship God. For the wood
and the brass and the monster were not God.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|