Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Then referring to the blasphemy of Eunomius, which had been refuted by the great Basil, where he banished the Only-begotten God to the realm of darkness, and the apology or explanation which Eunomius puts forth for his blasphemy, he shows that his present blasphemy is rendered by his apology worse than his previous one; and herein he very ably discourses of the “true” and the “unapproachable” Light. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
§2. Then referring to
the blasphemy of Eunomius, which had been refuted by the great Basil,
where he banished the Only-begotten God to the realm of darkness, and
the apology or explanation which Eunomius puts forth for his blasphemy,
he shows that his present blasphemy is rendered by his apology worse
than his previous one; and herein he very ably discourses of the
“true” and the “unapproachable”
Light.
Let us also investigate this
point as well,—what defence he has to offer on those matters on
which he was convicted of error by the great Basil, when he banishes
the Only-begotten God to the realm of darkness, saying, “As great
as is the difference between the generate and the ungenerate, so great
is the divergence between Light and Light.” For as he has already
shown that the difference between the generate and the ungenerate is
not merely one of greater or less intensity, but that they are
diametrically opposed as regards their meaning; and since he has
inferred by logical consequence from his premises that, as the
difference between the light of the Father and that of the Son
corresponds to ungeneracy and generation, we must necessarily suppose
in the Son not a diminution of light, but a complete alienation from
light. For as we cannot say that generation is a modified ungeneracy,
but the signification of the terms γέννησις and ἀγεννησία are absolutely contradictory and mutually exclusive, so, if
the same distinction is to be preserved between the Light of the Father
and that conceived as existing in the Son, it will be logically
concluded that the Son is not henceforth to be conceived as Light, as
he is excluded alike from ungeneracy itself, and from the light which
accompanies that condition,—and He Who is something different
from light will evidently, by consequence, have affinity with its
contrary,—since this absurdity, I say, results from his
principles, Eunomius endeavours to explain it away by dialectic
artifices, delivering himself as follows: “For we know, we know
the true Light, we know Him who created the light after the heavens and
the earth, we have heard the Life and Truth Himself, even Christ,
saying to His disciples, ‘Ye are the light of the world1044 ,’ we have learned from the blessed
Paul, when he gives the title of ‘Light unapproachable1045
1045 Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 16. The quotation, as S.
Gregory points out, is inexact. | ’ to the God over all, and by the
addition defines and teaches us the transcendent superiority of His
Light; and now that we have learnt that there is so great a difference
between the one Light and the other, we shall not patiently endure so
much as the mere mention of the notion that the conception of light in
either case is one and the same.” Can he be serious when he
advances such arguments in his attempts against the truth, or is he
experimenting upon the dulness of those who follow his error to see
whether they can detect so childish and transparent a fallacy, or have
no sense to discern such a barefaced imposition? For I suppose that no
one is so senseless as not to perceive the juggling with equivocal
terms by which Eunomius deludes both himself and his admirers. The
disciples, he says, were termed light, and that which was produced in
the course of creation is also called light. But who does not know that
in these only the name is common, and the thing meant in each case is
quite different? For the light of the sun gives discernment to the
sight, but the word of the disciples implants in men’s souls the
illumination of the truth. If, then, he is aware of this difference
even in the case of that light, so that he thinks the light of the body
is one thing, and the light of the soul another, we need no longer
discuss the point with him, since his defence itself condemns him if we
hold our peace. But if in that light he cannot discover such a
difference as regards the mode of operation, (for it is not, he may
say, the light of the eyes that illumines the flesh, and the spiritual
light which illumines the soul, but the operation and the potency of
the one light and of the other is the same, operating in the same
sphere and on the same objects,) then how is it that from the
difference between the light of the beams of the sun and that of the
words of the Apostles, he infers a like difference between the
Only-begotten Light and the Light of the Father? “But the
Son,” he says, “is called the ‘true’ Light, the
Father ‘Light unapproachable.’” Well, these
additional distinctions import a difference in degree only, and not in
kind, between the light of the Son and the light of the Father. He
thinks that the “true” is one thing, and the
“unapproachable” another. I suppose there is no one so
idiotic as not to see the real identity of meaning in the two terms.
For the “true” and the “unapproachable” are
each of them removed in an equally absolute degree from their
contraries. For as the “true” does not admit any
intermixture of the false, even so the “unapproachable”
does not admit the access of its contrary. For the
“unapproachable” is surely unapproachable by evil. But the
light of the Son is not evil; for how can any one see in evil that
which is true? Since, then, the truth is not evil, no one can say that
the light which is in the Father is unapproachable by the truth. For if
it were to reject the truth it would of course be associated with
falsehood. For the nature of contradictories is such that the absence
of the better involves the presence of its opposite. If, then, any one
were to say that the Light of the Father was contemplated as remote
from the presentation of its opposite, he would interpret the term
“unapproachable” in a manner agreeable to the intention of
the Apostle. But if he were to say that “unapproachable”
signified alienation from good, he would suppose nothing else than that
God was alien from, and at enmity with, Himself, being at the same time
good and opposed to good. But this is impossible: for the good is akin
to good. Accordingly the one Light is not divergent from the other. For
the Son is the true Light, and the Father is Light unapproachable. In
fact I would make bold to say that the man who should interchange the
two attributes would not be wrong. For the true is unapproachable by
the false, and on the other side, the unapproachable is found to be in
unsullied truth. Accordingly the unapproachable is identical with the
true, because that which is signified by each expression is equally
inaccessible to evil. What is the difference then, that is imagined to
exist in these by him who imposes on himself and his followers by the
equivocal use of the term “Light”? But let us not pass over
this point either without notice, that it is only after garbling the
Apostle’s words to suit his own fancy that he cites the phrase as
if it came from him. For Paul says, “dwelling in light
unapproachable1046 .” But there
is a great difference between being oneself something and
being in something. For he who said, “dwelling in light
unapproachable,” did not, by the word “dwelling,”
indicate God Himself, but that which surrounds Him, which in our view
is equivalent to the Gospel phrase which tells us that the Father is in
the Son. For the Son is true Light, and the truth is unapproachable by
falsehood; so then the Son is Light unapproachable in which the Father
dwells, or in Whom the Father is.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|