125 (78). A Transcript of Faith Dictated by the Most Holy Basil, Which Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste, Signed
LETTERS
125. A Transcript 0/ Faith Dictated by the Most Holy Basil, Which Eustathius, Bishop 0/ Sebaste, Signed1
Those who have either previously accepted another proThis letter represents but one step in St. Basil's gradual disillusion. ment as to the character of Eustathius of Sebaste. On Eustathius, cf.
Letters 79 and 119, with notes. The series of incidents leading up to St. Basil's break with Eustathius may be described briefly as follows.
Theodotus, Bishop of Nicopolis, had invited St. Basil to attend a synodical meeting at Nicopolis. St. Basil, on his way there, interviewed
Eustathius, which at once barred him from attending the synod.
Grieved and humiliated at this treatment from Theodotus, St. Basil returned home and sought counsel from Eusebius of Samosata. This occurred in May, 372. In the following June or July he again returned to Armenia, not only to confer with Meletius, but also to comply with an order from the emperor to place bishops in the vacant sees of that province. Because of the coolness between himself and Theodotus, St.
Basil went first to Getasa, the home of Meletius, and there, in the pres· ence of reliable witnes£es, he justified his conduct with Eustathius and refuted the accusations of Theodotus. The latter, who was pres· ent, maintained that Eustathius had denied any agreement with St.
Basil's propositions.' Accordingly, to satisfy Theodotus, St. Basil offered to make Eustathius sign a profession of faith containing all the articles of the Nicene Creed. Theodotus accepted the plan, and promised to as. sist St. Basil in appointing bishops in Armenia. However, upon his ar· rival in Nicopolis, Theodotus forgot all that had passed and virtually ex· communicated St. Basil. Under these circumstances, St. Basil was pre. vented from making the appointments. Fatigued, disappointed, and grieved over the turn of affairs, he returned home only to find sadly neglected conditions in his own diocese. St. Basil made a third visit to Armenia in the yeaI' 373, probably in connection with the ordina· tion of Faustus. It was on this trip that the people of Armenia demand. ed an assurance of the orthodoxy of Eustathius. St. Basil willingly of· fered to go in person to Eustathius and have him sign a profession of faith. The present letter was accordingly drafted. Some think it is written by St. Basil together with Theodotus, while others believe that it has the tone of a synodical decree. At any rate, a meeting was ar. ranged and the transcript signed in the presence of witnesses. For St.
Basil's own account of the signing, d. Letter 244, sec. 2. But, St. Basil's suspicions, once aroused, were not easily allayed. He accordingly pro. posed another meeting so that the prelates of Caesarea and Sebaste might be united with one another and their communion for the future be sincere. Both the place and the date were decided upon, but Eusta· thius atld his colleagues failed to keep the appointment. In spite of all efforts on the part of Eusebius of Samosata to effect a reconciliation and finally win Eustathius to the Nicene faith, Eustathius, shortly after signing the present letter, renounced communion with St. Basil
SAINT BASIL
fession of faith and wish to transfer to unity with the orthodox, or even those who now for the first time wish to be instructed in the doctrine of truth, must be taught the Creed written by the blessed Fathers in the synod assembled formerly at Nicaea. And the same thing would be useful also for those suspected of being opposed to sound doctrine and who obscure the meaning of their false teaching by their specious subterfuges. For these, also the Creed inserted here is sufficient. For, either they will correct their hidden disease or, if they hide it completely in the depths [of their hearts], they will themselves bear the condemnation for their deceit, but will prepare for us an easy defense in the Day of Judgment, when the Lord will reveal 'the things hidden in darkness and make manifest the counsels of hearts.'2 Therefore, it is proper to receive them if they profess that they believe according to the words set down by our Fathers at Nicaea and according to the clearly expressed meaning of these words.
Now, there are some who are corrupting the doctrine of truth in this Creed and are twisting the sense of the words in it according to their own will. In fact, even Marcellus,3 and openly attacked him on the ground of Apollinarianism. Although paineCl at the duplicity -of his former friend, and distressed over his false charges, S1. Basil for about three years maintained a discreet silence. He, then, for the first time, openly defended himself against the slanders of Eustathius. Cf. Letter 223.
2 I Cor. 4.5.
3 Marcellus of Ancyra was one of the biMOpS present at the Councils of Ancyra and Nicaea. He was a strong opponent of Arianism, but in his zeal to combat Arius adopted the opposite extreme of modified Sabel. lianism. He was several times condemned. and died. deprived of his see, in 374. Marcellus confused the Personality of God, declaring that God was originally only one Personality, but at the creation of the universe the Word or Logos went out from the Father and was God's activity in the world. This Logos became incarnate in Christ and was thus constituted Son of God. The Holy Spirit likewise went forth as the third Divine Personality from the Father and from Christ accord· ing to St. John 20.22. At the consummation of all things, however.
Christ and the Holy Spirit will return to the Father, and the Godhead will be again an absolute unity. Cf. Cath. Encyclopedia, under Mar· cellus of Ancyra. Cf. also Jerome, De vir. ill. 86.
LETTERS
when speaking impiously against the person4 of our Lord Jesus Christ and explaining Him as mere 'Word,' dared to allege by way of excuse that he took his principles from the Creed, giving a wrong explanation of the meaning of 'consubstantial.' And some from the impious sect of the Libyan
Sabellius,5 interpreting 'person' and 'substance' as the same, take as the starting point for the fabrication of their blasphemies the fact that it is written in the Creed that, 'if anyone says that the Son is from another substance of person, the Catholic and Apostolic Church excommunicates him.'
Now, it is not said in this latter statement that substance and person are the same thing. For, if the words expressed one and the same idea, what was the need of both of them? But, it is evident that, since some deny that the Son is of the substance of the Father, and others say that He is not, indeed, of the substance but that He is of some other person, they thus have rejected both views as foreign to the mind of the Church. Now, when [the Fathers] declared their opinion, they said that the Son was of the substance of the Father, not adding further, 'of the person.' Thus, that former statement is laid down as a rejection of the evil opinion, but this latter contains a declaration of the doctrine of salvation.
Accordingly, it is necessary to confess that the Son is con4 For a definition of the theological terms used in this letter, d. Letter 8.
5 Sabellius affirmed that there exists in God only a single person, and that this unity or monad constitutes the abs.olute being at God. When the Divine Essence departed from its quiet and inactivity, manifesting itself and acting, it was called the Word. It is the Word which created the world, and, again, it is the Word which undertook the salvation of humanity. For this work it took three successive modes of existence: three aspects (prosopa) , three denominations (onomata) , correspond. ing to the three economies which succeed each other in the order of salvation: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But, these three modes of existence are transitory and accidental. Each of them is to cease at the same time as the object which necessitates each.
SAINT BASIL
substantial with the Father, as it is written, and to confess the Father in His own Person, the Son in His own, and the Holy Spirit in His own, just as [the Fathers] themselves have clearly explained. For, they proved sufficiently and clearly by saying 'Light from Light' that the One is the Light which begot, and the Other the Light which was begotten, truly
Light and Light; so that the meaning of substance [in regard to the Father and to the Son] is one and the same. At this point, let us insert also the very Creed which was written at Nicaea.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made; consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth. Who for us men and our salvation came down; and was incarnate and was made man; suffered, and rose again on the third day; He ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say 'There was once a time when He was not,' and 'Before He was begotten He was not,' and that 'He was made from what was not,' or affirm that the Son of God is of another person or substance, or that He is capable of change or variation, such persons the Catholic and Apostolic Church excommunicates.
Whereas, then, the other doctrines are here fully and accurately defined, some for the correction of what has already been perverted, others for a protection against what may be expected to arise, nevertheless the doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit is laid down very briefly as requiring no discussion, because at that time this question had not yet been stirred up, but the concept of it remained unchallenged in
LETTERS
the souls of the faithful. Little by little, however, the wicked seeds of impiety increased. These were formerly thrown down by Arius, the author of heresy, and later they were fostered by his evil successors, to the detriment of the churches, and the consequent impiety suddenly burst into blasphemy against the Spirit. So, before those who have no consideration for themselves and do not take thought of the inevitable threat which our Lord held out for those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit it is necessary to set forth this statement: that we must excommunicate those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature; also, those who think so; and those who do not confess that He is holy by nature, as the Father is holy by nature and the Son holy by nature, but exclude Him from the divine and blessed nature. And, a proof of orthodox opinion is not to separate Him from the Father and the Son
(for we must be baptized as we have received the words; and we must believe as we are baptized; and we must give glory as we have believed, to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit), but to withdraw from the communion of those who call Him a creature, on the ground that they are clearly blasphemers. Since this has been agreed upon (for the comment is necessary because of the slanderers), that we do not say that the Holy Spirit is either unbegotten-for we know one U nbegotten and one Beginning of things in existence, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ-nor begotten-for we are taught in the tradition of faith that there is one Only-begotten-then, having been taught that theSpirit of Truth proceeds from the Father, we confess that He is from God without being created. And we must also excommunicate those who say that the Holy Spirit is of the ministering order, on the ground that by this word they reduce
Him to the rank of a creature. For the Scripture has handed down to us the ministering spirits as creatures, saying: 'All
SAINT BASIL
are mInIstering spmts, sent for service.'6 Now, because of those who mix up everything and do not preserve the teaching in the Gospels, we must add this further principle: that it is necessary to shun those, also, as being openly in opposition to piety, who change the sequence which the Lord handed down to us, placing the Son before the Father, and putting the Holy Spirit before the Son. In fact, we must preserve unaltered and inviolable the sequence which we received from the very words of the Lord, who said: 'Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit.'7
Signature of Eustathius, Bishop I, Bishop Eustathius, having read this aloud to you, Basil, have understood and have agreed with what is written above.
Moreover, I have signed it in the presence of my brothers, our Fronto,8 and the suffragan bishop Severus,9 and some other members of the clergy as well.
6 Cf. Heb. 1.14. St. Basil does not give the fun quotation.
7 Matt. 28.19.
8 Fronto was a priest under the jurisdiction of Theodotus, Bishop of Nicopoli&. to whose see he was elevated after the latter's death. How. ever, he did not possess Theodotus' firmness of character, for he fell into heresy.
9 Known only from this passage.