{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/205/2050095.htm","path":"chr/ecf/205/2050095.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/205/2050095.htm","text":"\u00a72. He then explains the phrase of S. Peter, \u201cHim God made Lord and Christ.\u201d 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.\nNow 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, \u201cHim God made Lord and Christ, this Jesus Whom ye crucified 696 ,\u201d while on our part it is said that it is not pious to refer the word \u201cmade\u201d to the Divine Nature of the Only-begotten, but that it is to be referred to that \u201cform of a servant 697 ,\u201d which came into being by the Incarnation 698 , 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 \u201cmade\u201d the Apostle indicates the pretemporal generation of the Son. We shall, p. CLXXIV 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\u2019 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, \u201cexecute true judgment,\u201d as one of the prophets 699 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.\n\u201cIn addition, moreover, to what we have mentioned, by his refusal to take the word \u2018made\u2019 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 \u2018emptied Himself to take the form of a servant 700 ,\u2019 and \u2018was crucified through weakness 701 .\u2019 At all events the great Basil writes expressly as follows 702 :\u2014\u2018Nor, 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 humiliation 703 , and was crucified through weakness.\u2019 And again, \u2018This is known to any one who even in a small degree applies his mind to the meaning of the Apostle\u2019s 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 all 704 .\u2019\n\u201cThis, then, is what the man has to say who substitutes,\u2014for we may not speak of it as \u2018application,\u2019 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,\u2014who substitutes his own mind 705 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 \u2018emptied himself\u2019 to become man, and who maintain that He Who by obedience \u2018humbled himself\u2019 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 \u2018empty himself\u2019 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 \u2018seen,\u2019 and who \u2018emptied Himself,\u2019 as Basil says, and if the man who was seen \u2018emptied Himself\u2019 to take \u2018the form of a servant,\u2019 and He Who \u2018emptied Himself\u2019 to take \u2018the form of a servant,\u2019 emptied Himself to come into being as man, then the man who was seen emptied himself to come into being as man 706 . The very nature of things is repugnant to this; and it is expressly contradicted by that writer 707 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 \u2018the form of a servant.\u2019 If, then, you hold that these things are to be believed, depart from your error, and cease to believe that the man \u2018emptied himself\u2019 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 dep. CLXXV cision against them. Remember him who says, \u2018Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant.\u2019 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:\u2014for that is what it means to \u2018take the form of a servant,\u2019 \u2018being in the form of God.\u2019 If, then, the blessed Peter speaks of Him Who \u2018emptied Himself\u2019 to \u2018take the form of a servant,\u2019 and if He Who was \u2018in the form of God\u2019 did \u2018empty Himself\u2019 to \u2018take the form of a servant,\u2019 and if He Who in the beginning was God, being the Word and the Only-begotten God, is He Who was \u2018in the form of God,\u2019 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 \u2018applied his own mind to the intention of the Apostles\u2019, 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 \u2018emptied Himself\u2019 and \u2018took the form of a servant\u2019 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, \u2018And the Word was made flesh 708 \u2019; 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 Cross 709 ; and again in another passage calls Him Who was crucified \u2018the Lord of Glory\u2019: \u2018for had they known it,\u2019 he says, \u2018they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory 710 \u2019. Indeed, he speaks far more openly than this of the very essential nature by the name of \u2018Lord,\u2019 where he says, \u2018Now the Lord is the Spirit 711 \u2019. 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.\u201d\nCf. Phil. ii. 7\nCLXXIV:701\nCf. 2 Cor. xiii. 4.\nCLXXIV:702\nThe quotations are from S. Basil c. Eunomius II. 3. (pp. 239\u201340 in the Benedictine edition.)\nCLXXIV:703\nCf. Phil. iii. 21.\nCLXXIV:704\nThe latter part of the quotation from S. Basil does not exactly agree with the Benedictine text, but the variations are not material.\nCLXXIV:705\nReading \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 for the \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd of Oehler\u2019s text, for which no authority is alleged by the editor, and which is probably a mere misprint.\nCLXXIV:706\nThe argument here takes the form of a reductio ad absurdum; assuming that S. Peter\u2019s reference is to the \u201cvisible man,\u201d and bearing in mind S. Basil\u2019s words that S. Peter refers to Him Who \u201cemptied Himself,\u201d it is said \u201cthen it was the \u2018visible man\u2019 who \u2018emptied himself.\u2019 But the purpose of that \u2018emptying\u2019 was the \u2018taking the form of a servant,\u2019 which again is the coming into being as man: therefore the \u2018visible man\u2019 \u2018emptied himself,\u2019 to come into being as man, which is absurd.\u201d The wording of S. Basil\u2019s statement makes the argument in a certain degree plausible;\u2014if 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 \u201cemptied Himself\u201d to become man, and as so having \u201cemptied Himself\u201d (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 \u201cemptied Himself\u201d was no mere man, but the Word Who was in the beginning, have any force as against S. Basil\u2019s statement.\nCLXXIV:707\nS. John i. 1 sqq.\nCLXXV:708\nS. John i. 14\nCLXXV:709 CLXXV:710 CLXXV:711","title":"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. V: Dogmatic Treatises.: He then explains the phrase of S. Peter, \u201cHim God made Lord and Christ.\u201d 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.","type":"page"}