38 (43). To His Brother Gregory, concerning the Difference between Substance and Person
SAINT BASIL
38. To His Brother Gregory, concerning the Difference between Substance and Person 1
Since, at present, many persons treating of the doctrines relating to the mystery [of the Trinity] make no distinction between the general term of 'substance' and the word 'person,' they fall into the same presumption, thinking that it makes no difference whether they say 'substance' or 'person.'
For this reason, too, some of those who accept such expressions without examination are satisfied to speak of 'one person' in God, just as they say 'one substance'; contrariwise, those admitting the three persons believe that they must, because of this admission, declare also the division of substances into the same number. Therefore, in order that you may not be led to embrace similar errors, I have written a short explanation of this as a reminder for you. Now, to put it briefly, the meaning of these words is as follows.
Some nouns denominating several objects and objects differing in number have a more or less general signification, as 'man.' For, in saying 'man,' a person by means of the name points out the common nature but does not describe by this word a definite man, one specifically known by that name.
For, 'man' is no more Peter than Andrew, John, or James.
Therefore, the common quality of that which is signified, since it refers likewise to all those grouped under the same
1 This letter, an important explanation of the difference between ousia (substance) and hyp6stasis (person), is also found among the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa addressed to his brother, St. Peter of Sebaste.
However, both from manuscript evidence and for stylistic reasons, as well as from the fact that it was referred to in the Council of Chalce. don as a letter of St. Basil's, it has in general been assigned to him, and no modern scholar has questioned its Basilian authorship. It was written either in 369 or 370. Cf. Letter 8 n. I, for the definitions of the terminology employed by S1. Basil in speaking 'Of the Blessed
Trinity.
LETTERS
name, has need of a specific characterization through which we shall recognize, not man in general, but Peter or John.
Other nouns have a more particular meaning through which is considered hot the common nature in the object indicated but its individual quality, and this distinctive quality it does not share with other objects of the same nature, as Paul or Timothy. For, such a word refers now not to the common nature but, departing from the collective significance, it sets forth through the names used a meaning of certain definite objects. Whenever, therefore, in the case of two or more objects of the same nature, as Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, a name is sought for the substance of man, a person will not give one word for substance in the case of Paul, another in the case of Silvanus, and still another in the case of Timothy; but, whatever words portray the substance of Paul, these will also be proper for the others. Moreover, they who are designated by the same name with regard to their substance are consubstantial with each other. Whenever anyone, after having learned the common characteristic, turns his consideration to individual qualities through which one thing is distinguished from another, no longer will the cognitive name of each one agree in all respects with that of the others, even if in certain points it is found to have the common characteristic.
This, therefore, is our explanation. That which is spoken of in the specific sense is signified by the word 'person'
[hypostasis]. For, because of the indefiniteness of the term, he who says 'man' has introduced through our hearing some vague idea, so that, although the nature is manifested by the name, that which subsists in the nature and is specifically designated by the name is not indicated. On the other hand, he who says 'Paul' has shown the subsistent nature of the object signified by the name. This, then, is the 'person' [hypo-
SAINT BASIL
stasis]. It is not the indefinite notion of 'substance' [ousza J, which creates no definite image because of the generality of its significance, but it is that which, through the specific qualities evident in it, restricts and defines in a certain object the general and indefinite, as is often done in many places in Scripture and especially in the story of Job. 2 In the beginning of the narrative about him, the general term 'man' is used; then, immediately, that thought is limited to what is particular by adding 'a certain.' However, as to the description of the substance nothing is said, since it makes no coptribution to the proposed object of the discourse; but the 'certain' one is characterized by specific marks, such as situation, traits of character, and the external characteristics which serve to differentiate him and set him apart from the general notion. Consequently, by all these means-the name, the place, the particular qualities of soul, and the exterior characteristics seen in him-a clear description is made of the man whose story is given. On the other hand, if the mean~ ing of substance were being given, there would have been no mention of the aforesaid matters in the explanation of its nature. In fact, the term used would have been the same as in mentioning Baldad the Sauhite, Sophar the Minnaean, and each of the other men referred to in the story. 3
Accordingly, you will not err if you transfer to divine doctrines this principle of differentiation between substance and person which you have recognized in their relation to human affairs. Whatever your judgment suggests and however it suggests as to the essence of the Father (for it is im2 Cf. Job 1.1: 'There was a man in the land of Hus, whose name was
Job, and that man was simple and upright, and fearing God, and avoiding evil.'
3 Cf. Job 2.11: 'Now when Job's three friends h~ard all the evil. that had befallen him, they came everyone from hiS own place, Ehphaz the Themanite, and Baldad the Suhite, and Sophar the Naamathite.
LETTERS
possible to superimpose any definite concept upon the immaterial because of our persuasion that it is above every concept), this you will hold for the Son and likewise for the Holy Spirit. For, the term 'Being Uncreated and Incomprehensible' is one and the same in meaning regarding the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For, one is not more incomprehensible and uncreated, and the other less.
But, since it is necessary, in the case of the Trinity, to keep a clear distinction [of persons] by means of individualizing marks, we shall not include in the determining individual mark that which is observed to be common, such as the attribute I mention of being uncreated or of being beyond all apprehension, or any other such. We shall seek only the qualities by which the concept of each shall be clearly and sharply distinguished from that concept obtained when they are contemplated together.
Therefore, it seems well to me to follow up the discussion in this way. Everything good which comes to us from the divine power we say is the action of grace working all things in all, as the Apostle says: 'But all these things are the work of one and the same Spirit, who divides to everyone according as he Will.'4 Moreover, when we inquire if the abundant blessings thus accruing to the worthy have their source in the Holy Spirit alone, again we are guided by the Scripture to the belief that the Only-begotten God is the author and cause of the abundance of blessings wrought in us through the Spirit. For, that all things were made through Him and stand together in Him, we have been taught by Holy Scripture. 5 Furthermore, when we have been lifted up to that conception, again being led on by the divinely inspired guidance, we are taught that through this power all
4 I Cor. 12.11.
5 Cf. John 1.3; also, Col. 1.17.
SAINT BASIL
things are brought from non-existence into existence, but that is not done indeed even by this power without a beginning. Still, there is a certain power subsisting without generation and without beginning, which is the principle of the principle of all things which exist. For, from the Father is the Son, through whom are all things and with whom the Holy Spirit is always inseparably associated. In fact, it is not possible for one not previously enlightened by the Spirit to arrive at a conception of the Son. Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit from whom all the abundance of benefits pours out upon the creature is linked with the Son with whom He is inseparably comprehended, and has His existence dependent on the Father as a principle, from whom He also proceeds, this He has as the distinguishing mark of the individuality of His person, namely, that He is made known after the Son and with the Son and that He subsists from the Father.
Now, the Son, who through Himself and with Himself makes known the Spirit which proceeds from the Father and who alone shines forth as the Only-begotten from the U nbegotten Light, shares in common with the Father or with the Holy Spirit none of the peculiar marks by which the Son is known, but He alone is recognized by the marks just mentioned. Furthermore, the supreme God alone has a certain special mark of His person by which He is known, namely, that He is the Father and subsists from no other principle; and, again, through this mark He Himself is also individually recognized. On this account we say that in the general quality of substance the distinguishing marks observed in the Trinity through which the individuality of the persons as handed down in the faith is presented are distinct and not shared, since each person is comprehended separately by its own characteristic marks. As a consequence, through the
LETTERS
marks just mentioned, the distinction of persons is attained, but, regarding the attribute of infinity and incomprehensibility, and that of being uncreated and of being circumscribed within no space, and in all other such attributes, there is no difference in the life-producing nature-I mean in the case of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spiritbut there is observed a certain constant and uninterrupted sharing in them. Through whatever thoughts one apprehends the majesty of anyone of the persons which we believe to be in the Blessed Trinity, through the same thoughts he will advance in precisely the same way, viewing the glory in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, since the intelligence does not tread on a gap between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For, there is nothing which intrudes itself between these persons, and nothing else subsisting beyond the divine nature that is able to separate it from itself through the interposition of something not belonging to it, nor is there a void due to any space lacking person, which causes the harmony of the divine substance to gape open, severing the continuity by the insertion of the void. But, he who has apprehended the Father has both apprehended Him in Himself and has also included the Son in the concept.
And he who has received the Son has not separated the Holy Spirit from the Son, but, consistently according to the order and conjointly according to their nature, he has imaged to himself his belief, which is a blending at the same time of the three persons. And he who has mentioned only the Spirit has embraced with It by this admission Him from whom the Spirit proceeds. And since He is the Spirit of Christ and from God, as Paul6 says, just as he who has grasped one end of a chain also draws along with him the other end, so he who 6 Cf. Rom. 8.9: 'But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ:
SAINT BASIL
draws the Spirit, as the Prophee says, through Him draws along both the Son and the Father. And if he would truly apprehend the Son, he will hold Him on both sides, on one, indeed, bringing His Father along with Him, and on the other His own Spirit. For, neither will it be possible for Him who exists eternally in the Father to be cut off from the Father, nor will He who works all things in the Spirit ever be parted from His own Spirit. Similarly, he who receives the Father also virtually receives along with Him both the Son and the Spirit. For, it is impossible in any way to think of a severance or a division, so that the Son is considered apart from the Father, or the Spirit is separated from the Son; but there is found in them a certain inexpressible and incomprehensible union and distinction, since neither the difference of the persons breaks the continuity of the nature, nor the common attribute of substance dissolves the individual character of their distinctive marks. But, do not wonder if we say that the same thing is both joined and separated and if, as in a riddle, we contrive something both strange and incredible, a conjoined separation and a separated union.
Nay, unless one listens to the explanation contentiously and haughtily, it is possible for him to find such a condition in the things which are perceived.
Receive my explanation, indeed, as an illustration and a shadow of the truth, not as the truth itself of the matters. For, it is impossible that what is observed in illustrations be capable of exact adaptation to that for which the need of illustration is admitted. Why, then, do we say that that which is separated and at the same time united is inferred by analogy from the things which appear to our senses? In spring, at various times you have beheld the brilliance of the 7 A misinterpretation. perhaps intentional. of Ps. 119.131: 'eilkusa pneuma:-'J drew breath' or 'I panted.'
LETTERS
bow in the clouds-I mean the arc which common speech is accustomed to call the 'rainbow.' Those experienced in these matters say that it is formed at a time when some moisture is mixed in with the air. The force of the wind presses into rain the damp and thick vapors which have already become cloudy. And they say that the rainbow is formed in this way. When the sunbeam stealing obliquely through the compact and opaque cloudy mass rests its circle veritcally on some cloud, there is produced, as it were, a certain bending and return of the light upon itself, since the brightness is returned in the opposite direction from the moist and gleaming particles. For, since it is the nature of the flame-like sparks, if they fall upon any smooth surface, to be reflected again to themselves, and since the shape of the sun produced by the rayon the moist and smooth particle of the air is circular, the shape of the solar circle necessarily is outlined by the reflected brightness, then, in the air lying around the cloud. Now, this brightness is both continuous with itself and is broken up. For, being of many colors and shapes it is imperceptibly intermingled with the varied hues of the dye, stealing unawares from our eyes the point of contact of the different colors with each other. As a result, between the blue-green and the flame-color, or the flame-color and the purple, or that and the amber, the space which both mixes and separates the two colors cannot be discerned. For, when the rays of all colors are seen at the same time they are distinct, and yet, by concealing the points of their contact with . each other, they also elude our scrutiny, so that it is impossible to find out how far the red color or the green of the radiance extends, and from what point it begins to be no longer such as it is perceived in the distinct parts. 8
8 St. Basil seems to be ignorant of the order of the colors of the spectrum. But the Greek terms for the colors are vague. and no one of the equivalents used in the translation is really certain.
SAINT BASIL
Accordingly, as in the illustration we clearly discern the different colors and yet cannot detect by observation the lines of separation of one from the other, consider, I pray, that it is possible also to draw inferences concerning the divine dogmas, to reason that the specific qualities of the persons, like anyone of the brilliant colors which appear in the rainbow, flash in each of those persons which we believe to be in the Holy Trinity, but that no distinction is observed in the peculiar character of the nature of one as compared with the other.
Yet, in the common property of the substance, the distinguishing individual qualities of each shine forth. For, even there in the illustration it was one substance which flashed forth that many-colored light, the one which was reflected through the solar ray, but the brilliance of the bow which appeared was of many kinds. Reason also teaches us through the created object not to feel disturbed in the discussions about doctrine when, falling upon facts hard to understand, we become dizzy at the acceptance of the matters discussed. For, just as in the case of those things which are seen by the eyes, experience seemed better than a theory of causation, so also, in the case of the dogmas which transcend our comprehension, faith is mightier than the direct apprehension through reasoning, since it teaches both that which is separated in person and that which is united in substance. Since, therefore, our discussion has considered on the one hand that which is common to the persons of the Blessed Trinity, and on the other, what is peculiar to each, we may say that the substance is the common attribute, but the person is the specific quality of each.
Yet, some may think that the doctrine of the person as thus set forth does not agree with the thought expressed in the writings of the Apostle, in which he says concerning the Lord that He is the 'brightness of his glory and the image
LETTERS
of his person.'9 For, if we have explained that 'person' is the combination of the specific qualities in each [member of the Trinity] and it is admitted, as in the case of the Father, that that which is observed of an individualizing nature is something through which He alone is known, and in the same manner a like belief is held concerning the Only-begotten, how does the Scripture in this passage ascribe the name of 'person' to the Father alone, and say that the Son is a form
'of his person,' characterized not by His own, but by the distinguishing marks of the Father? For, if the person is the special sign of the existence of each member and, further, it is admitted that being 'unbegotten' is peculiar to the Father, but the Son has been formed by the attributes peculiar to the Father, then no longer, as it seems, does it remain to the Father exclusively to be called the 'Unbegotten' in the sense of Himself alone, if, indeed, the existence of the Onlybegotten is characterized by the property peculiar to the Father.
But, we may say this, that the expression fulfills in this passage another purpose of the Apostle, and looking toward that aim he used these words, saying: 'the brightness of his glory and the image of his person.' Now, if one carefully considers it, he will not find that it conflicts with the statement made by us, but that it supports the meaning of a certain particular idea. For, the statement of the Apostle does not elaborate on how the persons are distinguished from each other by the marks appearing in them, but how the true sonship and the inseparable and intimate relationship of the Son with the Father is apprehended. For, he did not say 'who being the glory of the Father,' although this is the truth, but, neglecting this as being already admitted, in teaching us to consider not one form of glory in the Father and 9 Cf. Heb. \.3., where St. Paul uses the \l'ord 'hypostasis' (person)
SAINT BASIL
another in the Son, he defines the glory of the Only-begotten as 'the brightness of the glory of the Father,' establishing from the illustration of the light the inseparable inclusion of the Son in our idea of the Father. For, as the brightness is from the flame, and not, indeed, a radiance coming after the flame, but at the same time that the flame is enkindled the light also flashes forth, so also he wishes the Son to be considered as from the Father, not, indeed, for the Only-begotten to be separated by some dimensional interval from the existence of the Father, but for that which is from the principle always to be understood together with the principle.
Therefore, in the same manner, as if explaining the idea set forth before, he says: 'and the image of his person,' guiding us by means of illustrations pertaining to the body to the perception of the invisible. For, although the body exists entirely in form, there is one meaning of 'form' and another of 'body,' and no one giving the definition of either of these would make use of one definition for the other. However, even if by reason you could separate the figure from the body, nature does not admit the separation, but the one is considered conjointly with the other. And so the Apostle thinks that, even though the doctrine of faith teaches that the difference of persons is unconfused and distinct, nevertheless, it is necessary to present, through his words just quoted, the dose connection and, as it were, the congenital union of the Only-begotten with the Father, not because the Only-begotten also does not exist in person 10 but bec'ause He does not admit any intervening space in His oneness with the Father.
Consequently, he who has looked intently at the image of the Only-begotten through the eyes of his soul also arrives at an 10 I.e., not in the sense that the relationship between the Father and Son is merely a figure of speech and that the Father and the Son are not distinct Persons.
LETTERS
understanding of the 'person' of the Father; yet, the individuality observed in them is neither interchanged nor intermingled so that we pretend begotten ness as an attribute of the Father and unbegottenness as an attribute of the Son, but so that, if we separate one from the other, which is impossible, we comprehend the remaining one by Himself alone.
For, it is impossible, when naming the Son, not to think also of the Father, since this appellation naturally suggests the Father, also.
Since, therefore, he who has seen the Son sees also the Father, as the Lord says in the Gospels/Ion this account the Apostle asserts that the Only-begotten is 'the image of the person' of the Father. And in order that the thought may be more clearly perceived, we shall also include in our discussion other words of the Apostle in which he says that the Son is an 'image of the invisible God,'12 and, again, 'an image of his goodness,'13 not because the image differs from the archetype as far as concerns the meaning of invisibility and goodness, but in order that it may be shown that it is identical with the original although it is something else. For, the meaning of 'image' would not be preserved unless in all respects it would be clearly and exactly similar to the archetype. Certainly, then, he who has perceived the beauty of the image arrives at an understanding of the archetype. And he who has conceived in his mind the 'form,' as it were, of the Son conceives an 'image of his [Father's] person,' in looking at the latter through the former, since he does not behold the unbegottenness of the Father in the representation (for surely, then, the Son would be wholly the same and not some one else), but observing closely the unbegotten beauty in the II Cf. John 14.9.
12 Col. 1.15.
13 Wisd. 7.26. These words are ascribed to Solomon.