Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| To the same Amphilochius.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Letter
CCXXXVI.2975
| 2975 This letter is
also dated in 376, and treats of further subjects not immediately
raised by the De Spiritu Sancto: How Christ can be said
to be ignorant of the day and the hour; Of the prediction of
Jeremiah concerning Jeconiah; Of an objection of the Encratites; Of
fate; Of emerging in baptism; Of the accentuation of the word
φάγος;
Of essence and hypostasis; Of the ordaining of things neutral and
indifferent. |
To the same Amphilochius.
1. Enquiry has
already frequently been made concerning the saying of the gospels as to
our Lord Jesus Christ’s ignorance of the day and of the hour of
the end;2976
an objection
constantly put forward by the Anomœans to the destruction of the
glory of the Only-Begotten, in order to show Him to be unlike in
essence and subordinate in dignity; inasmuch as, if He know not all
things, He cannot possess the same nature nor be regarded as of one
likeness with Him, who by His own prescience and faculty of forecasting
the future has knowledge coextensive with the universe. This
question has now been proposed to me by your intelligence as a new
one. I can give in reply the answer which I heard from our
fathers when I was a boy, and which on account of my love for what is
good, I have received without question. I do not expect that it
can undo the shamelessness of them that fight against Christ, for where
is the reasoning strong enough to stand their attack? It may,
however, suffice to convince all that love the Lord, and in whom the
previous assurance supplied them by faith is stronger than any
demonstration of reason.
Now “no man” seems to be a general
expression, so that not even one person is excepted by it, but this is
not its use in Scripture, as I have observed in the passage
“there is none good but one, that is, God.”2977
| 2977
Mark x. 18. i.e. in
Adv. Eumon. iv. vide Proleg. | For even in this passage the Son does
not so speak to the exclusion of Himself from the good nature.
But, since the Father is the first good, we believe the words “no
man” to have been uttered with the understood addition of
“first.”2978
| 2978 The
manuscripts at this point are corrupt and divergent. | So with the
passage “No man knoweth the Son but the
Father;”2979
even here there
is no charge of ignorance against the Spirit, but only a testimony
that knowledge of His own nature naturally belongs to the Father
first. Thus also we understand “No man
knoweth,”2980
to refer to the
Father the first knowledge of things, both present and to be, and
generally to exhibit to men the first cause. Otherwise how can
this passage fall in with the rest of the evidence of Scripture, or
agree with the common notions of us who believe that the
Only-Begotten is the image of the invisible God, and image not of
the bodily figure, but of the very Godhead and of the mighty
qualities attributed to the essence of God, image of power, image of
wisdom, as Christ is called “the power of God and the wisdom
of God”?2981
Now of
wisdom knowledge is plainly a part; and if in any part He falls
short, He is not an image of the whole; and how can we understand
the Father not to have shewn that day and that hour—the
smallest portion of the ages—to Him through Whom He made the
ages? How can the Creator of the universe fall short of the
knowledge of the smallest portion of the things created by
Him? How can He who says, when the end is near, that such and
such signs shall appear in heaven and in earth, be ignorant of the
end itself? When He says, “The end is not
yet.”2982
He makes a
definite statement, as though with knowledge and not in doubt.
Then further, it is plain to the fair enquirer that our Lord says
many things to men, in the character of man; as for instance,
“give me to drink”2983
is a saying
of our Lord, expressive of His bodily necessity; and yet the asker
was not soulless flesh, but Godhead using flesh endued with
soul.2984
| 2984 cf.
Ep. cclxi. 2. The reference is to the system of
Apollinarius, which denied to the Son a ψυχὴ
λογική or reasonable
soul. | So in the
present instance no one will be carried beyond the bounds of the
interpretation of true religion, who understands the ignorance of
him who had received all things according to the
œconomy,2985
| 2985 οἰκονομικῶς, i.e. according to the œconomy of the incarnation.
cf. note on p. 7. | and was
advancing with God and man in favour and wisdom.2986
2. It would be worthy of your diligence to
set the phrases of the Gospel side by side, and compare together those
of Matthew and those of Mark, for these two alone are found in
concurrence in this passage. The wording of Matthew is “of
that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my
Father only.”2987
| 2987
Matt. xxiv.
36. R.V. in this
passage inserts “Neither the Son,” on the authority
of א, B. D.
Plainly St. Basil knew no such difference of reading. On
the general view taken by the Fathers on the self-limitation of
the Saviour, cf. C. Gore’s Bampton Lectures
(vi. p. 163, and notes 48 and 49, p. 267). | That of Mark
runs, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the
Father.”2988
What is noticeable in these
passages is this; that Matthew says nothing about the ignorance
of the Son, and seems to agree with Mark as to sense in saying
“but my Father only.” Now I understand the word
“only” to have been used in contradistinction to the
angels, but that the Son is not included with His own servants in
ignorance.
He could not say what is false Who said “All
things that the Father hath are Mine,”2989
but one of the things which the Father hath is knowledge of that day
and of that hour. In the passage in Matthew, then, the Lord made
no mention of His own Person, as a matter beyond controversy, and said
that the angels knew not and that His Father alone knew, tacitly
asserting the knowledge of His Father to be His own knowledge too,
because of what He had said elsewhere, “as the Father knoweth me
even so know I the Father,”2990
and if the
Father has complete knowledge of the Son, nothing excepted, so that He
knows all knowledge to dwell in Him, He will clearly be known as fully
by the Son with all His inherent wisdom and all His knowledge of things
to come. This modification, I think, may be given to the words of
Matthew, “but my Father only.” Now as to the words of
Mark, who appears distinctly to exclude the Son from the knowledge, my
opinion is this. No man knoweth, neither the angels of God; nor
yet the Son would have known unless the Father had known: that
is, the cause of the Son’s knowing comes from the Father.
To a fair hearer there is no violence in this interpretation, because
the word “only” is not added as it is in Matthew.
Mark’s sense, then, is as follows: of that day and of that
hour knoweth no man, nor the angels of God; but even the Son would not
have known if the Father had not known, for the knowledge naturally His
was given by the Father. This is very decorous and becoming the
divine nature to say of the Son, because He has, His knowledge and His
being, beheld in all the wisdom and glory which become His Godhead,
from Him with Whom He is consubstantial.
3. As to Jeconias, whom the prophet Jeremiah
declares in these words to have been rejected from the land of Judah,
“Jeconias was dishonoured like a vessel for which there is no
more use; and because he was cast out he and his seed; and none shall
rise from his seed sitting upon the throne of David and ruling in
Judah,”2991
the matter is plain
and clear. On the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the
kingdom had been destroyed, and there was no longer an hereditary
succession of reigns as before. Nevertheless, at that time, the
deposed descendants of David were living in captivity. On the
return of Salathiel and Zerubbabel the supreme government rested to a
greater degree with the people, and the sovereignty was afterwards
transferred to the priesthood, on account of the intermingling of the
priestly and royal tribes; whence the Lord, in things pertaining to
God, is both King and High Priest. Moreover, the royal tribe did
not fail until the coming of the Christ; nevertheless, the seed of
Jeconias sat no longer upon the throne of David. Plainly it is
the royal dignity which is described by the term
“throne.” You remember the history, how all
Judæa, Idumæa, Moab, both the neighbouring regions of Syria
and the further countries up to Mesopotamia, and the country on the
other side as far as the river of Egypt, were all tributary to
David. If then none of his descendants appeared with a
sovereignty so wide, how is not the word of the prophet true that no
one of the seed of Jeconias should any longer sit upon the throne of
David, for none of his descendants appears to have attained this
dignity. Nevertheless, the tribe of Judah did not fail, until He
for whom it was destined came. But even He did not sit upon the
material throne. The kingdom of Judæa was transferred to
Herod, the son of Antipater the Ascalonite, and his sons who divided
Judæa into four principalities, when Pilate was Procurator and
Tiberius was Master of the Roman Empire. It is the indestructible
kingdom which he calls the throne of David on which the Lord sat.
He is the expectation of the Gentiles2992
and not of the smallest division of the world, for it is written,
“In that day there shall be a root of Jesse which shall stand for
an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles
seek.”2993
| 2993
Is. xi. 10. The LXX. is καὶ ὁ
ἀνιστάμενος
ἄρχειν
ἐθνῶν. | “I
have called thee…for a covenant of the people for a light of
the Gentiles”;2994
and thus then
God remained a priest although He did not receive the sceptre of
Judah, and King of all the earth; so the blessing of Jacob was
fulfilled, and in Him2995
“shall all
the nations of the earth be blessed,” and all the nations
shall call the Christ blessed.
4. And as to the tremendous question put by the
facetious Encratites, why we do not
eat everything? Let this answer be given, that we turn with
disgust from our excrements. As far as dignity goes, to us flesh
is grass; but as to distinction between what is and what is not
serviceable, just as in vegetables, we separate the unwholesome from
the wholesome, so in flesh we distinguish between that which is good
and that which is bad for food. Hemlock is a vegetable, just as
vulture’s flesh is flesh; yet no one in his senses would eat
henbane nor dog’s flesh unless he were in very great
straits. If he did, however, he would not sin.
5. Next as to those who maintain that human
affairs are governed by fate, do not ask information from me, but stab
them with their own shafts of rhetoric. The question is too long
for my present infirmity. With regard to emerging in
baptism—I do not know how it came into your mind to ask such a
question, if indeed you understood immersion to fulfil the figure of
the three days. It is impossible for any one to be immersed three
times, without emerging three times. We write the word
φάγος
paroxytone.2996
| 2996
Amphilochius’s doubt may have arisen from the fact that
φαγός,
the Doric form of φηγός, the esculent oak of
Homer, is oxytone. |
6. The distinction between οὐσία and
ὑπόστασις
is the same as that between the general and the particular;
as, for instance, between the animal and the particular
man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one
essence or substance so as not to give a variant definition of
existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that
our conception of Father, Son and Holy Spirit may be without
confusion and clear.2997
| 2997
“ἀσύγχυτος,”
unconfounded, or without confusion, is the title of
Dialogue II. of Theodoret. cf. p. 195.
n. | If we
have no distinct perception of the separate characteristics,
namely, fatherhood, sonship, and sanctification, but form our
conception of God from the general idea of existence, we cannot
possibly give a sound account of our faith. We must,
therefore, confess the faith by adding the particular to the
common. The Godhead is common; the fatherhood
particular. We must therefore combine the two and say,
“I believe in God the Father.” The like course
must be pursued in the confession of the Son; we must combine the
particular with the common and say “I believe in God the
Son,” so in the case of the Holy Ghost we must make our
utterance conform to the appellation and say “in
God2998
| 2998 The
Benedictine note is Videtur in Harlæano codice scriptum
prima manu εις
τὸν θεόν. Their
reading is εις
το θεῖον
πνεῦμα τὸ
ἅγιον.
cf. Ep. viii., § 2, where no
variation of mss. is noted and
Ep. cxli, both written before he was bishop.
cf. Proleg. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. xliii.,
explains the rationale of St. Basil’s use of the word
“God,” of the Holy Ghost; alike in his public and
private teaching he never shrank from using it, whenever he could
with impunity, and his opinions were perfectly well known, but he
sought to avoid the sentence of exile at the hands of the Arians by
its unnecessary obtrusion. He never uses it in his homily
De Fide, and the whole treatise De Spiritu Sancto,
while it exhaustively vindicates the doctrine, ingeniously steers
clear of the phrase. | the Holy
Ghost.” Hence it results that there is a satisfactory
preservation of the unity by the confession of the one Godhead,
while in the distinction of the individual properties regarded in
each there is the confession of the peculiar properties of the
Persons. On the other hand those who identify essence or
substance and hypostasis are compelled to confess only three
Persons,2999
and, in their
hesitation to speak of three hypostases, are convicted of failure
to avoid the error of Sabellius, for even Sabellius himself, who
in many places confuses the conception, yet, by asserting that
the same hypostasis changed its form3000
| 3000 The Ben. Edd.
note “Existimat Combefisius verbum μετασχηματίζεσθαι
sic reddendum esse, in various formas
mutari. Sed id non dicebat Sabellius. Hoc tantum
dicebat, ut legimus in Epist. ccxiv. Unum quidem
hypostasi Deum esse, sed sub diversis personis a Scripturare
præsentari. According to Dante the minds of the
heresiarchs were to Scripture as bad mirrors, reflecting distorted
images; and, in this sense, μετασχηματιζειν
might be applied rather to them.
“Si fe Sabellio ed Arrio e quegli
stolti,
Che furon come spade alle scritture
In render torti li diritti volti.”
Par. xiii. 123 (see Cary’s
note). | to meet the needs of the moment, does
endeavour to distinguish persons.
7. Lastly as to your enquiry in what manner
things neutral and indifferent are ordained for us, whether by some
chance working by its own accord, or by the righteous providence of
God, my answer is this: Health and sickness, riches and poverty,
credit and discredit, inasmuch as they do not render their possessors
good, are not in the category of things naturally good, but, in so far
as in any way they make life’s current flow more easily, in each
case the former is to be preferred to its contrary, and has a certain
kind of value. To some men these things are given by God for
stewardship’s sake,3001
| 3001 ἐξ
οἰκονομίας.
In Ep. xxxi. Basil begins a letter to Eusebius of
Samosata: “The dearth has not yet left us, we are
therefore compelled still to remain in the town, either for
stewardship’s sake or for sympathy with the
afflicted.” Here the Benedictines’ note is
Sæpe apud Basilium οικονομία
dicitur id quod pauperibus distribuitur. Vituperat in
Comment. in Isa. præsules qui male partam pecuniam accipiunt
vel ad suos usus, ἢ
ἐπὶ
λόγῳ τῆς τῶν
πτωχευόντων
ἐν τῇ
᾽Εκκλησί& 139·
οἰκονομίας,
vel per causam distribuendi pauperibus Ecclesiæ. In
Epistola 92 Orientales inter mala Ecclesiæ illud etiam
deplorant quod ambitiosi præsules οἰκονομ as
πτωχῶν, pecunias
pauperibus destinatas in suos usus convertant. | as for instance to
Abraham, to Job and such like. To inferior characters they are a
challenge to improvement. For the man who persists in
unrighteousness, after so goodly a token of love from God, subjects
himself to condemnation without defence. The good man,
however, neither turns his
heart to wealth when he has it, nor seeks after it if he has it
not. He treats what is given him as given him not for his selfish
enjoyment, but for wise administration. No one in his senses runs
after the trouble of distributing other people’s property, unless
he is trying to get the praise of the world, which admires and envies
anybody in authority.
Good men take sickness as athletes take their contest,
waiting for the crowns that are to reward their endurance. To
ascribe the dispensation of these things to any one else is as
inconsistent with true religion as it is with common
sense. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
