Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
|  | |
 | Eunomius again speaks of the Son as Lord and God, and Maker of all creation intelligible and sensible, having received from the Father the power and the commission for creation, being entrusted with the task of creation as if He were an artizan commissioned by some one hiring Him, and receiving His power of creation as a thing adventitious, ab extra, as a result of the power allotted to Him in accordance with such and such combinations and positions of the stars, as destiny decrees their lot in life to men at their nativity. Thus, passing by most of what Eunomius had written, he confutes his blasphemy that the Maker of all things came into being in like manner with the earth and with angels, and that the subsistence of the Only-begotten differs not at all from the genesis of all things, and reproaches Him with reverencing neither the Divine mystery nor the custom of the Church, nor following in his attempt to discover godliness any teacher of pious doctrine, but Manichæus, Colluthus, Arius, Aetius, and those like to them, supposing that Christianity in general is folly, and that the customs of the Church and the venerable sacraments are a jest, wherein he differs in nothing from the pagans, who borrowed from our doctrine the idea of a great God supreme over all. So, too, this new idolater preaches in the same fashion, and in particular that baptism is “into an artificer and creator,” not fearing the curse of those who cause addition or diminution to the Holy Scriptures. And he closes his book with showing him to be Antichrist.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
§5. 1006
| 1006 The
grammar of this section of the analysis is in parts very much confused;
the general drift of its intention, rather than its literal meaning, is
given in the translation. Grammatically speaking it appears to
attribute to S. Gregory some of the opinions of Eunomius. The
construction, however, is so ungrammatical that the confusion is
probably in the composer’s expression rather than in his
interpretation of what he is summarizing. | Eunomius again speaks of the Son as Lord
and God, and Maker of all creation intelligible and sensible, having
received from the Father the power and the commission for creation,
being entrusted with the task of creation as if He were an artizan
commissioned by some one hiring Him, and receiving His power of
creation as a thing adventitious, ab extra, as a result of the power
allotted to Him in accordance with such and such combinations and
positions of the stars, as destiny decrees their lot in life to men at
their nativity. Thus, passing by most of what Eunomius had written, he
confutes his blasphemy that the Maker of all things came into being in
like manner with the earth and with angels, and that the subsistence of
the Only-begotten differs not at all from the genesis of all things,
and reproaches Him with reverencing neither the Divine mystery nor the
custom of the Church, nor following in his attempt to discover
godliness any teacher of pious doctrine, but Manichæus, Colluthus,
Arius, Aetius, and those like to them, supposing that Christianity in
general is folly, and that the customs of the Church and
the venerable sacraments are a jest, wherein he differs in nothing from
the pagans, who borrowed from our doctrine the idea of a great God
supreme over all. So, too, this new idolater preaches in the same
fashion, and in particular that baptism is “into an artificer and
creator,” not fearing the curse of those who cause addition or
diminution to the Holy Scriptures. And he closes his book with showing
him to be Antichrist.
Afterwards, however, he gives
his discourse a more moderate turn, imparting to it even a touch of
gentleness, and, though he had but a little earlier partitioned off the
Son from the title of Existent, he now says,—“We affirm
that the Son is not only existent, and above all existent things, but
we also call Him Lord and God, the Maker of every being1007
, sensible and intelligible.” What does
he suppose this “being” to be? created? or uncreated? For
if he confesses Jesus to be Lord, God, and Maker of all intelligible
being, it necessarily follows, if he says it is uncreated, that
he speaks falsely, ascribing to the Son the making of the uncreated
Nature. But if he believes it to be created, he makes Him His
own Maker. For if the act of creation be not separated from
intelligible nature in favour of Him Who is independent and uncreated,
there will no longer remain any mark of distinction, as the sensible
creation and the intelligible being will be thought of under one head1008
| 1008 The
passage is a little obscure: if the force of the dative τῷ καθ᾽
ἑαυτὸν
ἀκτίστῳ be that assigned to it, the meaning will be that, if no exception
is made in the statement that the Son is the Maker of every
intelligible being, the Deity will be included among the works of the
Son, Who will thus be the Maker of Himself, as of the sensible
creation. | . But here he brings in the assertion that
“in the creation of existent things He has been entrusted by the
Father with the construction of all things visible and invisible, and
with the providential care over all that comes into being, inasmuch as
the power allotted to Him from above is sufficient for the production
of those things which have been constructed1009
| 1009 It is
not quite clear how much of this is citation, and how much paraphrase
of Eunomius’ words. | .” The vast length to which our
treatise has run compels us to pass over these assertions briefly: but,
in a sense, profanity surrounds the argument, containing a vast swarm
of notions like venomous wasps. “He was entrusted,” he
says, “with the construction of things by the Father.” But
if he had been talking about some artizan executing his work at the
pleasure of his employer, would he not have used the same language? For
we are not wrong in saying just the same of Bezaleel, that being
entrusted by Moses with the building of the tabernacle, he became the
constructor of those things there1010
mentioned, and
would not have taken the work in hand had he not previously acquired
his knowledge by Divine inspiration, and ventured upon the undertaking
on Moses’ entrusting him with its execution. Accordingly the term
“entrusted” suggests that His office and power in creation
came to Him as something adventitious, in the sense that before He was
entrusted with that commission He had neither the will nor the power to
act, but when He received authority to execute the works, and power
sufficient for the works, then He became the artificer of things
that are, the power allotted to Him from on high being, as Eunomius
says, sufficient for the purpose. Does he then place even the
generation of the Son, by some astrological juggling1011
| 1011 Reading τερατείαν
for the otherwise unknown word περατείαν, which Oehler retains. If περατείαν
is the true reading, it should probably be rendered by
“fatalism,” or “determination.” Gulonius
renders it by “determinationem.” It may be connected with
the name “Peratae,” given to one of the Ophite sects, who
held fatalist views. | , under some destiny, just as they who
practise this vain deceit affirm that the appointment of their lot in
life comes to men at the time of their birth, by such and such
conjunctions or oppositions of the stars, as the rotation above moves
on in a kind of ordered train, assigning to those who are coming into
being their special faculties? It may be that something of this kind is
in the mind of our sage, and he says that to Him that is above all
rule, and authority, and dominion, and above every name that is named,
not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, there has
been allotted, as though He were pent in some hollow spaces, power from
on high, measured out in accordance with the quantity of things which
come into being. I will pass over this part of his treatise also
summarily, letting fall from a slight commencement of investigation,
for the more intelligent sort of readers, seeds to enable them to
discern his profanity. Moreover, in what follows, there is ready
written a kind of apology for ourselves. For we cannot any longer be
thought to be missing the intention of his discourse, and
misinterpreting his words to render them subject to criticism, when his
own voice acknowledges the absurdity of his doctrine. His words stand
as follows:—“What? did not earth and angel come into being,
when before they were not?” See how our lofty theologian is not
ashamed to apply the same description to earth and angels and to the
Maker of all! Surely if he thinks it fit to predicate the same of earth
and its Lord, he must either make a god of the one, or degrade the
other to a level with it.
Then he adds to this something
by which his profanity is yet more completely stripped of all disguise,
so that its absurdity is obvious even to a child. For he
says,—“It would be a long task to detail all the modes of
generation of intelligible objects, or the essences which do not all
possess the nature of the Existent in common, but display variations
according to the operations of Him Who constructed them.” Without
any words of ours, the blasphemy against the Son which is here
contained is glaring and conspicuous, when he acknowledges that that
which is predicated of every mode of generation and essence in nowise
differs from the description of the Divine subsistence1012
of the Only-begotten. But it seems to me
best to pass over the intermediate passages in which he seeks to
maintain his profanity, and to hasten to the head and front of the
accusation which we have to bring against his doctrines. For he will be
found to exhibit the sacrament of regeneration as an idle thing, the
mystic oblation as profitless, and the participation in them as of no
advantage to those who are partakers therein. For after those
high-wrought æons1013
| 1013 The
word seems to be used, as “octads” in Book IX. seems to be
used, of sections of Eunomius’ production. | in which, by way of
disparagement of our doctrine, he names as its supporters a Valentinus,
a Cerinthus, a Basilides, a Montanus, and a Marcion, and after laying
it down that those who affirm that the Divine nature is unknowable, and
the mode of His generation unknowable, have no right or title whatever
to the name of Christians, and after reckoning us among those whom he
thus disparages, he proceeds to develop his own view in these
terms:—“But we, in agreement with holy and blessed men;
affirm that the mystery of godliness does not consist in venerable
names, nor in the distinctive character of customs and sacramental
tokens, but in exactness of doctrine.” That when he wrote this,
he did so not under the guidance of evangelists, apostles, or any of
the authors of the Old Testament, is plain to every one who has any
acquaintance with the sacred and Divine Scripture. We should naturally
be led to suppose that by “holy and blessed men” he meant
Manichæus, Nicolaus, Colluthus, Aetius, Arius, and the rest of the
same band, with whom he is in strict accord in laying down this
principle, that neither the confession of sacred names, nor the customs
of the Church, nor her sacramental tokens, are a ratification of
godliness. But we, having learnt from the holy voice of Christ that
“except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit he shall
not enter into the kingdom of God1014
| 1014 Cf.
S. John iii. 3 and 6. | ” and
that “He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, shall live
for ever1015
,” are persuaded that the mystery
of godliness is ratified by the confession of the Divine
Names—the Names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and
that our salvation is confirmed by participation in the sacramental
customs and tokens. But doctrines have often been carefully
investigated by those who have had no part or lot in that mystery, and
one may hear many such putting forward the faith we hold as a subject
for themselves in the rivalry of debate, and some of them often even
succeeding in hitting the truth, and for all that none the less
estranged from the faith. Since, then, he despises the revered Names,
by which the power of the more Divine birth distributes grace to them
who come for it in faith, and slights the fellowship of the sacramental
customs and tokens from which the Christian profession draws its
vigour, let us, with a slight variation, utter to those who listen to
his deceit the word of the prophet:—“How long will ye be
slow of heart? Why do ye love destruction and seek after leasing1016
| 1016 Cf. Ps. iv. 2 (LXX.). The alteration made is the substitution of
ἀπώλειαν for ματαιότητα | ?” How is it that ye do not see the
persecutor of the faith inviting those who consent unto him to violate
their Christian profession? For if the confession of the revered and
precious Names of the Holy Trinity is useless, and the customs of the
Church unprofitable, and if among these customs is the sign of the
cross1017
| 1017 ῾Η σφραγίς. The term is used elsewhere by Gregory in this sense, in
the Life of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, and in the Life of S.
Macrina. | , prayer, baptism, confession of sins, a
ready zeal to keep the commandment, right ordering of character,
sobriety of life, regard to justice, the effort not to be excited by
passion, or enslaved by pleasure, or to fall short in moral
excellence,—if he says that none of such habits as these is
cultivated to any good purpose, and that the sacramental tokens do not,
as we have believed, secure spiritual blessings, and avert from
believers the assaults directed against them by the wiles of the evil
one, what else does he do but openly proclaim aloud to men that he
deems the mystery which Christians cherish a fable, laughs at the
majesty of the Divine Names, considers the customs of the Church a
jest, and all sacramental operations idle prattle and folly? What
beyond this do they who remain attached to paganism bring forward in
disparagement of our creed? Do not they too make the majesty of the
sacred Names, in which the faith is ratified, an occasion of laughter?
Do not they deride the sacramental tokens and the customs which are
observed by the initiated? And of whom is it so much a distinguishing
peculiarity as of the pagans, to think that piety should consist in
doctrines only? since they also say that according to their view, there
is something more persuasive than the Gospel which we preach,
and some of
them hold that there is some one great God preeminent above the rest,
and acknowledge some subject powers, differing among themselves in the
way of superiority or inferiority, in some regular order and sequence,
but all alike subject to the Supreme. This, then, is what the teachers
of the new idolatry preach, and they who follow them have no dread of
the condemnation that abideth on transgressors, as though they did not
understand that actually to do some improper thing is far more grievous
than to err in word alone. They, then, who in act deny the faith, and
slight the confession of the sacred Names, and judge the sanctification
effected by the sacramental tokens to be worthless, and have been
persuaded to have regard to cunningly devised fables, and to fancy that
their salvation consists in quibbles about the generate and the
ungenerate,—what else are they than transgressors of the
doctrines of salvation?
But if any one thinks that these
charges are brought against them by us ungenerously and unfairly, let
him consider independently our author’s writings, both what we
have previously alleged, and what is inferred in logical connection
with our citations. For in direct contravention of the law of the
Lord—(for the deliverance to us of the means of initiation
constitutes a law),—he says that baptism is not into the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as Christ commanded His disciples when He
delivered to them the mystery, but into an artificer and creator, and
“not only Father,” he says, “of the Only-begotten,
but also His God1018
| 1018 These
last words are apparently a verbal quotation, those preceding more
probably a paraphrase of Eunomius statement. | .” Woe unto
him who gives his neighbour to drink turbid mischief1019
| 1019 Cf. Hab. ii. 15 (LXX.). It is possible that the reading θολεράν
for δολεράν, which appears both in Oehler’s text and in the Paris
edition, was a various reading of the passage in the LXX., and that S.
Gregory intended to quote exactly. | ! How does he trouble and befoul the truth by
flinging his mud into it! How is it that he feels no fear of the curse
that rests upon those who add aught to the Divine utterance, or dare to
take aught away? Let us read the declaration of the Lord in His very
words—“Go,” He says, “teach all nations,
baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost.” Where did He call the Son a creature? Where did the
Word teach that the Father is creator and artificer of the
Only-begotten? Where in the words cited is it taught that the Son is a
servant of God? Where in the delivery of the mystery is the God of the
Son proclaimed? Do ye not perceive and understand, ye who are dragged
by guile to perdition, what sort of guide ye have put in charge of your
souls,—one who interpolates the Holy Scriptures, who garbles the
Divine utterances, who with his own mud befouls the purity of the
doctrines of godliness, who not only arms his own tongue against us,
but also attempts to tamper with the sacred voices of truth, who is
eager to invest his own perversion with more authority than the
teaching of the Lord? Do ye not perceive that he stirs himself up
against the Name at which all must bow, so that in time the Name of the
Lord shall be heard no more, and instead of Christ Eunomius shall be
brought into the Churches? Do ye not yet consider that this preaching
of godlessness has been set on foot by the devil as a rehearsal,
preparation, and prelude of the coming of Antichrist? For he who is
ambitious of showing that his own words are more authoritative than
those of Christ, and of transforming the faith from the Divine Names
and the sacramental customs and tokens to his own deceit,—what
else, I say, could he properly be called, but only
Antichrist?E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
