Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| He then explains the phrase of S. Peter, “Him God made Lord and Christ.” And herein he sets forth the opposing statement of Eunomius, which he made on account of such phrase against S. Basil, and his lurking revilings and insults.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
§2. He then explains
the phrase of S. Peter, “Him God made Lord and Christ.” And
herein he sets forth the opposing statement of Eunomius, which he made
on account of such phrase against S. Basil, and his lurking revilings
and insults.
Now that we have had presented
to us this preliminary view of existences, it may be opportune to
examine the passage before us. It is said, then, by Peter to the Jews,
“Him God made Lord and Christ, this Jesus Whom ye crucified696
,” while on our part it is said that it
is not pious to refer the word “made” to the Divine Nature
of the Only-begotten, but that it is to be referred to that “form
of a servant697
,” which came into being by the
Incarnation698
| 698 οἰκονομικῶς
γενομένην | , in the due time of His appearing in
the flesh; and, on the other hand, those who press the phrase the
contrary way say that in the word “made” the Apostle
indicates the pretemporal generation of the Son. We shall, therefore, set forth the
passage in the midst, and after a detailed examination of both the
suppositions, leave the judgment of the truth to our reader. Of our
adversaries’ view Eunomius himself may be a sufficient advocate,
for he contends gallantly on the matter, so that in going through his
argument word by word we shall completely follow out the reasoning of
those who strive against us: and we ourselves will act as champion of
the doctrine on our side as best we may, following so far as we are
able the line of the argument previously set forth by the great Basil.
But do you, who by your reading act as judges in the cause,
“execute true judgment,” as one of the prophets699
says, not awarding the victory to contentious
preconceptions, but to the truth as it is manifested by examination.
And now let the accuser of our doctrines come forward, and read his
indictment, as in a court of law.
“In addition, moreover, to
what we have mentioned, by his refusal to take the word
‘made’ as referring to the essence of the Son, and withal
by his being ashamed of the Cross, he ascribes to the Apostles what no
one even of those who have done their best to speak ill of them on the
score of stupidity, lays to their charge; and at the same time he
clearly introduces, by his doctrines and arguments, two Christs and two
Lords; for he says that it was not the Word Who was in the beginning
Whom God made Lord and Christ, but He Who ‘emptied Himself to
take the form of a servant700
,’ and
‘was crucified through weakness701
.’ At all
events the great Basil writes expressly as follows702
| 702 The
quotations are from S. Basil c. Eunomius II. 3. (pp. 239–40 in
the Benedictine edition.) | :—‘Nor, moreover, is it the
intention of the Apostle to present to us that existence of the
Only-begotten which was before the ages (which is now the subject of
our argument), for he clearly speaks, not of the very essence of God
the Word, Who was in the beginning with God, but of Him Who emptied
Himself to take the form of a servant, and became conformable to the
body of our humiliation703
, and was crucified
through weakness.’ And again, ‘This is known to any one who
even in a small degree applies his mind to the meaning of the
Apostle’s words, that he is not setting forth to us the mode of
the Divine existence, but is introducing the terms which belong to the
Incarnation; for he says, Him God made Lord and Christ, this
Jesus Whom ye crucified, evidently laying stress by the demonstrative
word on that in Him which was human and was seen by all704
| 704 The
latter part of the quotation from S. Basil does not exactly agree with
the Benedictine text, but the variations are not material. | .’
“This, then, is what the
man has to say who substitutes,—for we may not speak of it as
‘application,’ lest any one should blame for such madness
men holy and chosen for the preaching of godliness, so as to reproach
their doctrine with a fall into such extravagance,—who
substitutes his own mind705
| 705 Reading ἑαυτοῦ for the ἑαυτῶν of
Oehler’s text, for which no authority is alleged by the editor,
and which is probably a mere misprint. | for the intention of
the Apostles! With what confusion are they not filled, who refer their
own nonsense to the memory of the saints! With what absurdity do they
not abound, who imagine that the man ‘emptied himself’ to
become man, and who maintain that He Who by obedience ‘humbled
himself’ to take the form of a servant was made conformable to
men even before He took that form upon Him! Who, pray, ye most reckless
of men, when he has the form of a servant, takes the form of a
servant? and how can any one ‘empty himself’ to become the
very thing which he is? You will find no contrivance to meet this, bold
as you are in saying or thinking things uncontrivable. Are you not
verily of all men most miserable, who suppose that a man has suffered
death for all men, and ascribe your own redemption to him? For if it is
not of the Word Who was in the beginning and was God that the blessed
Peter speaks, but of him who was ‘seen,’ and who
‘emptied Himself,’ as Basil says, and if the man who was
seen ‘emptied Himself’ to take ‘the form of a
servant,’ and He Who ‘emptied Himself’ to take
‘the form of a servant,’ emptied Himself to come into being
as man, then the man who was seen emptied himself to come into being as
man706
| 706 The
argument here takes the form of a reductio ad absurdum; assuming
that S. Peter’s reference is to the “visible man,”
and bearing in mind S. Basil’s words that S. Peter refers to Him
Who “emptied Himself,” it is said “then it was the
‘visible man’ who ‘emptied himself.’ But the
purpose of that ‘emptying’ was the ‘taking the form
of a servant,’ which again is the coming into being as man:
therefore the ‘visible man’ ‘emptied himself,’
to come into being as man, which is absurd.” The wording of S.
Basil’s statement makes the argument in a certain degree
plausible;—if he had said that S. Peter referred to the Son, not
in regard to his actual essence, but in regard to the fact that He
“emptied Himself” to become man, and as so having
“emptied Himself” (which is no doubt what he intended his
words to mean), then the reductio ad absurdum would not apply;
nor would the later arguments, by which Eunomius proceeds to prove that
He Who “emptied Himself” was no mere man, but the Word Who
was in the beginning, have any force as against S. Basil’s
statement. | . The very nature of things is repugnant to
this; and it is expressly contradicted by that writer707
who celebrates this dispensation in his discourse concerning the Divine
Nature, when he says not that the man who was seen, but that the Word
Who was in the beginning and was God took upon Him flesh, which is
equivalent in other words to taking ‘the form of a
servant.’ If, then, you hold that these things are to be
believed, depart from your error, and cease to believe that the man
‘emptied himself’ to become man. And if you are not able to
persuade those who will not be persuaded, destroy their incredulity by
another saying, a second decision against them. Remember
him who says, ‘Who being in the form of God thought it not
robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a
servant.’ There is none among men who will appropriate this
phrase to himself. None of the saints that ever lived was the
Only-begotten God and became man:—for that is what it means to
‘take the form of a servant,’ ‘being in the form of
God.’ If, then, the blessed Peter speaks of Him Who
‘emptied Himself’ to ‘take the form of a
servant,’ and if He Who was ‘in the form of God’ did
‘empty Himself’ to ‘take the form of a
servant,’ and if He Who in the beginning was God, being the Word
and the Only-begotten God, is He Who was ‘in the form of
God,’ then the blessed Peter speaks to us of Him Who was in the
beginning and was God, and expounds to us that it was He Who became
Lord and Christ. This, then, is the conflict which Basil wages against
himself, and he clearly appears neither to have ‘applied his own
mind to the intention of the Apostles’, nor to be able to
preserve the sequence of his own arguments; for, according to them, he
must, if he is conscious of their irreconcilable character, admit that
the Word Who was in the beginning and was God became Lord; or if he
tries to fit together statements that are mutually conflicting, and
contentiously stands by them, he will add to them others yet more
hostile, and maintain that there are two Christs and two Lords. For if
the Word that was in the beginning and was God be one, and He Who
‘emptied Himself’ and ‘took the form of a
servant’ be another, and if God the Word, by Whom are all things,
be Lord, and this Jesus, Who was crucified after all things had come
into being, be Lord also, there are, according to his view, two Lords
and Christs. Our author, then, cannot by any argument clear himself
from this manifest blasphemy. But if any one were to say in support of
him that the Word Who was in the beginning is indeed the same Who
became Lord, but that He became Lord and Christ in respect of His
presence in the flesh, He will surely be constrained to say that the
Son was not Lord before His presence in the flesh. At all events, even
if Basil and his faithless followers falsely proclaim two Lords and two
Christs, for us there is one Lord and Christ, by Whom all things were
made, not becoming Lord by way of promotion, but existing before all
creation and before all ages, the Lord Jesus, by Whom are all things,
while all the saints with one harmonious voice teach us this truth and
proclaim it as the most excellent of doctrines. Here the blessed John
teaches us that God the Word, by Whom all things were made, has become
incarnate, saying, ‘And the Word was made flesh708
’; here the most admirable Paul, urging
those who attend to him to humility, speaks of Christ Jesus, Who was in
the form of God, and emptied Himself to take the form of a servant, and
was humbled to death, even the death of the Cross709
;
and again in another passage calls Him Who was crucified ‘the
Lord of Glory’: ‘for had they known it,’ he says,
‘they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory710
’. Indeed, he speaks far more openly
than this of the very essential nature by the name of
‘Lord,’ where he says, ‘Now the Lord is the Spirit711
’. If, then, the Word Who was in the
beginning, in that He is Spirit, is Lord, and the Lord of glory, and if
God made Him Lord and Christ, it was the very Spirit and God the Word
that God so made, and not some other Lord Whom Basil dreams
about.”E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
