Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
On the Holy
Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit.
To Eustathius1278
| 1278 The
greater part of this treatise is found also among the Letters of S.
Basil [Ep. 189 (80): Ed. Gaume, Tom iii. p. 401 (276 c.)]. The
Benedictine edition of S. Basil notes that in one ms. a marginal note attributes the letter to Gregory. It
may be added that those parts which appear to be found only in the
mss. of Gregory make the argument considerably
clearer than it is if they are excluded, as they are from the
Benedictine text of S. Basil. | .
————————————
All you
who study medicine have, one may say, humanity for your profession: and
I think that one who preferred your science to all the serious pursuits
of life would form the proper judgment, and not miss the right
decision, if it be true that life, the most valued of all things, is a
thing to be shunned, and full of pain, if it may not be had with
health, and health your art supplies. But in your own case the science
is in a notable degree of double efficacy; you enlarge for yourself the
bounds of its humanity, since you do not limit the benefit of your art
to men’s bodies, but take thought also for the cure of troubles
of the mind. I say this, not only following the common reports, but
because I have learnt it from experience, as in many other matters, so
especially at this time in this indescribable malice of our enemies,
which you skilfully dispersed when it swept like some evil flood over
our life, dispelling this violent inflammation of our heart by your
fomentation of soothing words. I thought it right, indeed, in view of
the continuous and varied effort of our enemies against us, to keep
silence, and to receive their attack quietly, rather than to speak
against men armed with falsehood, that most mischievous weapon, which
sometimes drives its point even through truth. But you did well in
urging me not to betray the truth, but to refute the slanderers, lest,
by a success of falsehood against truth, many might be
injured.
I may say that those who
conceived this causeless hatred for us seemed to be acting very much on
the principle of Æsop’s fable. For just as he makes his wolf
bring some charges against the lamb (feeling ashamed, I suppose, of
seeming to destroy, without just pretext, one who had done him no
hurt), and then, when the lamb easily swept away all the slanderous
charges brought against him, makes the wolf by no means slacken his
attack, but carry the day with his teeth when he is vanquished by
justice; so those who were as keen for hatred against us as if it were
something good (feeling perhaps some shame of seeming to hate without
cause), make up charges and complaints against us, while they do not
abide consistently by any of the things they say, but allege, now that
one thing, after a little while that another, and then again that
something else is the cause of their hostility to us. Their malice does
not take a stand on any ground, but when they are dislodged from one
charge they cling to another, and from that again they seize upon a
third, and if all their charges are refuted they do not give up their
hate. They charge us with preaching three Gods, and din into the ears
of the multitude this slander, which they never rest from maintaining
persuasively. Then truth fights on our side, for we show both publicly
to all men, and privately to those who converse with us, that we
anathematize any man who says that there are three Gods, and hold him
to be not even a Christian. Then, as soon as they hear this, they find
Sabellius a handy weapon against us, and the plague that he spread is
the subject of continual attacks upon us. Once more, we oppose to this
assault our wonted armour of truth, and show that we abhor this form of
heresy just as much as Judaism. What then? are they weary after such
efforts, and content to rest? Not at all. Now they charge us with
innovation, and frame their complaint against us in this
way:—They allege that while we confess1279
| 1279 Reading ὁμολογοῦντας
with Oehler. The Paris Edit. reads ὁμολογούντων, and so also the Benedictine S. Basil. The Latin
translator of 1615, however, renders as if he had read ὁμολογοῦντας |
three Persons we say that there is one goodness, and one power,
and one Godhead.
And in this assertion they do not go beyond the truth; for we do say
so. But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not
admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply?
We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the
law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for1280
| 1280 Reading εἰς
ὀρθότητος
ἀπόδειξιν, with Oehler and the Benedictine S. Basil. The Paris Edit.
of 1615 reads εἰς
ὀρθότητα
λόγου. | proof of soundness, we too, surely, may
advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely
not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our
umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose
dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
Well, what is their charge?
There are two brought forward together in the accusation against us;
one, that we divide the Persons; the other, that we do not employ any
of the names which belong to God in the plural number, but (as I said
already) speak of the goodness as one, and of the power, and the
Godhead, and all such attributes in the singular. With regard to the
dividing of the Persons, those cannot well object who hold the doctrine
of the diversity of substances in the Divine nature. For it is not to
be supposed that those who say that there are three substances do not
also say that there are three Persons. So this point only is called in
question: that those attributes which are ascribed to the Divine nature
we employ in the singular.
But our argument in reply to
this is ready and clear. For any one who condemns those who say that
the Godhead is one, must necessarily support either those who say that
there are more than one, or those who say that there is none. But the
inspired teaching does not allow us to say that there are more than
one, since, whenever it uses the term, it makes mention of the Godhead
in the singular; as,—“In Him dwelleth all the fulness of
the Godhead1281
”; and,
elsewhere,—“The invisible things of Him from the foundation
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even His eternal power and Godhead1282
.” If, then, to extend the number of
the Godhead to a multitude belongs to those only who suffer from the
plague of polytheistic error, and on the other hand utterly to deny the
Godhead would be the doctrine of atheists, what doctrine is that which
accuses us for saying that the Godhead is one? But they reveal more
clearly the aim of their argument. As regards the Father, they admit
the fact that He is God1283
| 1283 Reading, with Oehler, τὸ θεὸν
εἴναι. | , and that the Son
likewise is honoured with the attribute of Godhead; but the Spirit, Who
is reckoned with the Father and the Son, they cannot include in their
conception of Godhead, but hold that the power of the Godhead, issuing
from the Father to the Son, and there halting, separates the nature of
the Spirit from the Divine glory. And so, as far as we may in a short
space, we have to answer this opinion also.
What, then, is our doctrine? The
Lord, in delivering the saving Faith to those who become disciples of
the word, joins with the Father and the Son the Holy Spirit also; and
we affirm that the union of that which has once been joined is
continual; for it is not joined in one thing, and separated in others.
But the power of the Spirit, being included with the Father and the Son
in the life-giving power, by which our nature is transferred from the
corruptible life to immortality, and in many other cases also, as in
the conception of “Good,” and “Holy,” and
“Eternal,” “Wise,” “Righteous,”
“Chief,” “Mighty,” and in fact everywhere, has
an inseparable association with them in all the attributes ascribed in
a sense of special excellence. And so we consider that it is right to
think that that which is joined to the Father and the Son in such
sublime and exalted conceptions is not separated from them in any. For
we do not know of any differences by way of superiority and inferiority
in attributes which express our conceptions of the Divine nature, so
that we should suppose it an act of piety (while allowing to the Spirit
community in the inferior attributes) to judge Him unworthy of those
more exalted. For all the Divine attributes, whether named or
conceived, are of like rank one with another, in that they are not
distinguishable in respect of the signification of their subject. For
the appellation of “the Good” does not lead our minds to
one subject, and that of “the Wise,” or “the
Mighty,” or “the Righteous” to another, but the thing
to which all the attributes point is one; and, if you speak of God, you
signify the same Whom you understood by the other attributes. If then
all the attributes ascribed to the Divine nature are of equal force as
regards their designation of the subject, leading our minds to the same
subject in various aspects, what reason is there that one, while
allowing to the Spirit community with the Father and the Son in the
other attributes, should exclude Him from the Godhead alone? It is
absolutely necessary either to allow to Him community in this also, or
not to admit His community in the others. For if He is worthy in the
case of those attributes, He is surely not less worthy in this. But if
He is “less,” according to their phrase1284
| 1284 Reading with Oehler εἰ δέ
μικρότερον…ἐστὶν, ὥστε…κεχωρίσθαι. The Paris Edit. and the Benedictine S. Basil read
εἰ δὲ
μικρότερον…ἐστὶν, ἢ
ὥστε…χωρῆσαι. “If, according to their phrase, He is too small to be
capable of community,” &c. Oehler’s reading seems to
fit better in the argument. If the new idea of “capacity”
had been introduced at this point, we should expect some other phrase
than μετέχειν
ἄξιον at the end of
the sentence. | , so that He is excluded from
community with the Father and the Son in the attribute of Godhead,
neither is He worthy to share in any other of the attributes which
belong to God. For the attributes, when rightly understood and mutually
compared by that notion which we contemplate in each case, will be
found to imply nothing less than the appellation of “God.”
And a proof of this is that many even of the inferior existences are
called by this very name. Further, the Divine Scripture is not sparing
in this use of the name even in the case of things incongruous, as when
it names idols by the appellation of God. For it says, “Let the
gods that have not made the heavens and the earth perish, and be cast
down beneath the earth1285
”; and,
“all the gods of the heathen are devils1286
”; and the witch in her incantations,
when she brings up for Saul the spirits that he sought for, says that
she “saw gods1287
.” And again
Balaam, being an augur and a seer, and engaging in divination, and
having obtained for himself the instruction of devils and magical
augury, is said in Scripture to receive counsel from God1288
. One may show by collecting many instances
of the same kind from the Divine Scripture, that this attribute has no
supremacy over the other attributes which are proper to God, seeing
that, as has been said, we find it predicated, in an equivocal sense,
even of things incongruous; but we are nowhere taught in Scripture that
the names of “the Holy,” “the Incorruptible,”
“the Righteous,” “the Good,” are made common to
things unworthy. If, then, they do not deny that the Holy Spirit has
community with the Father and the Son in those attributes which, in
their sense of special excellence, are piously predicated only of the
Divine nature, what reason is there to pretend that He is excluded from
community in this only, wherein it was shown that, by an equivocal use,
even devils and idols share?
But they say that this
appellation is indicative of nature, and that, as the nature of the
Spirit is not common to the Father and the Son, for this reason neither
does he partake in the community of this attribute. Let them show,
then, whereby they discern this diversity of nature. For if it were
possible that the Divine nature should be contemplated in its absolute
essence, and that we should find by appearances what is and what is not
proper to it, we should surely have no need of other arguments or
evidence for the comprehension of the question. But since it is exalted
above the understanding of the questioners, and we have to argue from
some particular evidence about those things which evade our knowledge1289
| 1289 Oehler and Migne’s edit. of S. Basil here read γνῶσιν, the Paris Edit. and the Benedictine S. Basil have
μνήμην. | , it is absolutely necessary for us to be
guided to the investigation of the Divine nature by its operations. If,
then, we see that the operations which are wrought by the Father and
the Son and the Holy Spirit differ one from the other, we shall
conjecture from the different character of the operations that the
natures which operate are also different. For it cannot be that things
which differ in their very nature should agree in the form of their
operation: fire does not chill, nor ice give warmth, but their
operations are distinguished together with the difference between their
natures. If, on the other hand, we understand that the operation of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one, differing or varying in
nothing, the oneness of their nature must needs be inferred from the
identity of their operation. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
alike give sanctification, and life, and light, and comfort, and all
similar graces. And let no one attribute the power of sanctification in
an especial sense to the Spirit, when he hears the Saviour in the
Gospel saying to the Father concerning His disciples, “Father,
sanctify them in Thy name1290
.” So too all
the other gifts are wrought in those who are worthy alike by the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: every grace and power, guidance,
life, comfort, the change to immortality, the passage to liberty, and
every other boon that exists, which descends to us.
But the order of things which is
above us, alike in the region of intelligence and in that of sense (if
by what we know we may form conjectures about those things also which
are above us), is itself established within the operation and power of
the Holy Spirit, every man receiving the benefit according to his own
desert and need. For although the arrangement and ordering of things
above our nature is obscure to our sense, yet one may more reasonably
infer, by the things which we know, that in them too the power of the
Spirit works, than that it is banished from the order existing in the
things above us. For he who asserts the latter view advances his
blasphemy in a naked and unseemly shape, without being able to support
his absurd opinion by any argument. But he who agrees that those things
which are above us are also ordered by the power of the Spirit with the
Father and the Son, makes his assertion on this point with the support
of clear evidence from his own life. For1291
| 1291 This
sentence and the passage following, down to the words “is wrought
by the Father and the Son,” are omitted in the editions of S.
Basil. | as the nature of
man is compounded of body and soul, and the angelic nature has for its
portion life without a body, if the Holy Spirit worked only in the case
of bodies, and the soul were not capable of receiving the grace that
comes from Him, one might perhaps infer from this, if the intellectual
and incorporeal nature which is in us were above the power of the
Spirit, that the angelic life too was in no need of His grace. But if
the gift of the Holy Spirit is principally a grace of the soul, and the
constitution of the soul is linked by its intellectuality and
invisibility to the angelic life, what person who knows how to see a
consequence would not agree, that every intellectual nature is governed
by the ordering of the Holy Spirit? For since it is said “the
angels do alway behold the Face of My Father which is in heaven1292
,” and it is not possible to behold the
person of the Father otherwise than by fixing the sight upon it through
His image; and the image of the person of the Father is the
Only-begotten, and to Him again no man can draw near whose mind has not
been illumined by the Holy Spirit, what else is shown from this but
that the Holy Spirit is not separated from any operation which is
wrought by the Father and the Son? Thus the identity of operation in
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shows plainly the undistinguishable
character of their substance. So that even if the name of Godhead does
indicate nature, the community of substance shows that this appellation
is properly applied also to the Holy Spirit. But I know not how these
makers-up of all sorts of arguments bring the appellation of Godhead to
be an indication of nature, as though they had not heard from the
Scripture that it is a matter of appointment1293
| 1293 Reading ὅτι
χειροτονητή, ᾗ φύσις
γίνεται.
The Paris Edit. and Migne’s S. Basil read ὅτι
χειροτονία ἡ
φύσις οὐ
γίνεται:
the Ben. S. Basil and Oehler read ὅτι
χειροτονητὴ
φύσις οὐ
γίνεται.
The point of the argument seems to be that “Godhead” is
spoken of in Scripture as being given by appointment, which excludes
the idea of its being indicative of “nature.” Gregory shows
that it is so spoken of; but he does not show that Scripture asserts
the distinction between nature and appointment, which the reading of
the Benedictine text and Oehler would require him to do. | ,
in which way nature does not arise. For Moses was appointed as a god of
the Egyptians, since He Who gave him the oracles, &c., spoke thus
to him, “I have given thee as a god to Pharaoh1294
.” Thus the force of the appellation is
the indication of some power, either of oversight or of operation. But
the Divine nature itself, as it is, remains unexpressed by all the
names that are conceived for it, as our doctrine declares. For in
learning that He is beneficent, and a judge, good, and just, and all
else of the same kind, we learn diversities of His operations, but we
are none the more able to learn by our knowledge of His operations the
nature of Him Who works. For when one gives a definition of any one of
these attributes, and of the nature to which the names are applied, he
will not give the same definition of both: and of things of which the
definition is different, the nature also is distinct. Indeed the
substance is one thing which no definition has been found to express,
and the significance of the names employed concerning it varies, as the
names are given from some operation or accident. Now the fact that
there is no distinction in the operations we learn from the community
of the attributes, but of the difference in respect of nature we find
no clear proof, the identity of operations indicating rather, as we
said, community of nature. If, then, Godhead is a name derived from
operation, as we say that the operation of the Father, and the Son, and
the Holy Spirit is one, so we say that the Godhead is one: or if,
according to the view of the majority, Godhead is indicative of nature,
since we cannot find any diversity in their nature, we not unreasonably
define the Holy Trinity to be of one Godhead1295
| 1295 The
treatise, as it appears in S. Basil’s works, ends
here. | .
But if any one were to call this
appellation indicative of dignity, I cannot tell by what reasoning he
drags the word to this significance. Since however one may hear many
saying things of this kind, in order that the zeal of its opponents may
not find a ground for attacking the truth, we go out of our way with
those who take this view, to consider such an opinion, and say that,
even if the name does denote dignity, in this case too the appellation
will properly befit the Holy Spirit. For the attribute of kingship
denotes all dignity; and “our God,” it says, “is King
from everlasting1296
.” But the
Son, having all things which are the Father’s, is Himself
proclaimed a King by Holy Scripture. Now the Divine Scripture says that
the Holy Spirit is the unction of the Only-Begotten1297
, interpreting the dignity of the Spirit by a
transference of the terms commonly used in this world. For as, in
ancient days, in those who were advanced to kingship, the token of this
dignity was the unction which was applied to them, and when this took
place there was thenceforth a change from private and humble estate to
the superiority of rule, and he who was deemed worthy of this grace
received after his anointing another name, being called, instead of an
ordinary man, the Anointed of the Lord: for this reason, that the
dignity of the Holy Spirit might be more clearly shown to men, He was
called by the Scripture “the sign of the Kingdom,” and
“Unction,” whereby we are taught that the Holy
Spirit shares in the glory and kingdom of the Only-begotten Son of God.
For as in Israel it was not permitted to enter upon the kingdom without
the unction being previously given, so the word, by a transference of
the terms in use among ourselves, indicates the equality of power,
showing that not even the kingdom of the Son is received without the
dignity of the Holy Spirit. And for this reason He is properly called
Christ, since this name gives the proof of His inseparable and
indivisible conjunction with the Holy Spirit. If, then, the
Only-begotten God is the Anointed, and the Holy Spirit is His Unction,
and the appellation of Anointed1298
| 1298 Reading with Oehler Χριστοῦ in place of Θεοῦ (the reading of
the Paris edition). | points to the
Kingly authority, and the anointing is the token of His Kingship, then
the Holy Spirit shares also in His dignity. If, therefore, they say
that the attribute of Godhead is significative of dignity, and the Holy
Spirit is shown to share in this last quality, it follows that He Who
partakes in the dignity will also partake in the name which represents
it.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
