52 (300). To the Canonesses
LETTERS
stantinople by George and his followers.7 Then, when he had already fallen into his last illness, being, through his mildness of disposition and his spirit of fairness, so willing in his paternal affection to completely satisfy all, he summoned us. He said that, with the Lord as his witness, in'the simplicity of his heart he had agreed to the document from Constantinople, but he had accepted nothing in rejection of the faith set forth by the holy Fathers at Nicaea, nor was he at heart otherwise than he had been when he had first received it. On the contrary, he even prayed that he might not be separated from the lot of those three hundred and eighteen blessed bishops who had announced the sacred doctrine to the world. Consequently, we, at this assurance, blotting out all doubt from our hearts, as you yourself know, entered in communion with him and ceased grieving.
Such, indeed, were our relations with the man. If anyone should say that he is aware of any wicked slander against him on our part, let him not babble furtively like a slave, but openly confront and fearlessly refute us.
7 The Homoean Creed of Ariminum revised at Nica and accepted in 360 at the Acacian Synod of Constantinople. 'George is, presumably, the George, Bishop of Laodicea, who at Seleucia opposed the Acacians, but who appears afterwards to have become reconciled to that party, and to have joined them in persecuting the Catholics of Constantinople'Jackson. Cf. Letter 251.
52. To the Canonesses1 Our brother Bosporius,2 a bishop dearly beloved of God, Canonesses were women of the early Church who lived a life of piety and followed a definite rule of life. They differed from nuns in that they did not take the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. The date of this letter is 370, in the beginning of St. Basil's episcopate.
2 Cf. Letter 51.
SAINT BASIL
by his more favorable report concerning your piety, gave us as much joy as the distressing rumor which resounded about our ears had previously pained us. For, he said, by the grace of God, alI those rumors spread abroad were fabrications of men not accurately understanding the truth about you. But, he adds that he found among you such slanders against us, indeed, as might be spoken by those who do not expect, on the day of His just retribution, to render an account to the Judge even of every idle word. 3 Therefore, I gave thanks to the Lord both because I myself was set right concerning my damaging opinion of you which, as it seems, I had accepted from the slanders of men, and also because I heard that you, upon receiving the favorable affirmation of our brother, had laid aside your false suspicions of us.
In those matters in which the latter presented to you his own opinion he, at the same time, fulIy expressed ours. For, we are both of one mind concerning the faith, both being heirs of the same Fathers, who previously at Nicaea praclaimed publicly the great doctrine of our religion. Although this doctrine is entirely free from misrepresentation in other respects, yet there are certain persons who never have accepted the word 'consubstantial,' which had been ill received by some. These might be justly blamed and yet again be considered worthy of pardon. For, to refuse to follow the Fathers and to refuse to regard their word as of greater authority than their own opinion is an arrogance deserving of reproach. On the other hand, to hold in suspicion that word which is discredited by others, perhaps, seems to free them somewhat from the charge. For, in truth, those who assembled in the case of Paul of Samosata 4 complained of 3 Cf. Matt. 12.36.
4 The two Antiochene synods of A.D. 264 and 269. To enforce their decisions against Paul of Samosata. recourse was had to the pagan
Aurelian.
LETTERS
the word on the ground that it was not clear. Now, they said that the word 'consubstantial' set before the mind an idea both of substance and derivatives in such a manner that the substance, when divided into parts, gives to the parts into which it was divided the name of 'consubstantial.'
This idea has some ground in the case of bronze and the money made from it, but in reference to God the Father and God the Son, substance is not considered anterior, nor is it considered as superimposed on both. In fact, to think or to say this is something more than impiety. For, what could be anterior to the U nbegotten? And by this blasphemy even the faith in the Father and the Son is destroyed, since objects subsisting from one and the same thing are related as brothers to each other. 5
And, since at that time some were saying that the Son was brought from non-existence into existence, the word
'consubstantial' was added to destroy this irreverence. For, the union of the Son with the Father is without time and without interruption. Moreover, the preceding words prove that this was the thought of these men. For, after they had said light from light, and that the Son was begotten and not made from the substance of the Father, they brought in 'consubstantial' over and above these attributes, indicating that whatever meaning of light is attributed to the Father, the same will also be appropriate for the Son. For, true light will show no variation from true light according to the very conception of light. Therefore, since the Father is light without beginning, and the Son light begotten, but one is light and the other is light, they rightly say 'consubstantial' in order that they may show the equal dignity of their nature. For, cognate objects are not said to be con~ub5 A reductio lUi absurdum. The doctrine of 'Likeness of Substance' was devised to get rid of this very notion.
SAINT BASIL
stantial, as some assume. But, when the cause and that which has its existence· from the cause are of the same nature, they are said to be consubstantial.
The same word also corrects the error of Sabellius.6 For, it destroys the identity of person [hypostasis] and introduces a perfect idea of the persons. Now, nothing is In itself consubstantial with itself, but one thing is consubstantial with another. Hence, the expression is a good and legitimate one, since it defines the individuality of the persons and shows the invariability of the nature.
But, when we learn that the Son is from the substance of the Father, begotten and not made, let us not fall into material ideas of the process. For, the substance was not separated from the Father and formed into the Son; nor did it engender by fluxion, nor by the putting forth of shoots,7 as plants produce their fruits, but the manner of the divine generation is incapable of expression and of comprehension by human reason. Yet, truly, it is characteristic of a lowly and carnal mind to compare the eternal with the perishable and transient, and to think that, as corporeal things beget, so God does in like manner. In reference to religion, we ought to take our arguments from the contraries, saying that, since the mortal concerns are thus, the immortal Being is not thus. Assuredly, we must not deny the divine generation, nor sully our minds with carnal thoughts.
Moreover, the Holy Spirit is numbered with the Father and the Son, because He also is above the created object, and His rank is as we have learned it in the Gospel from our Lord, who said: 'Go, baptizing in the name of the Father,
6 cr. Letter 9 n. 5.
7 cr. Luke 21.30.
LETTERS
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'8 But, the one who places Him before the Son, or says that He is older than the Father, opposes God's command and is a stranger to sound faith, since he does not preserve the form of the Doxology which he rec~ived, but invents for himself a novelty in order to be pleasing to men. Now, if He [the Spirit] is anterior to God, He is not from God. For, it is written:
'But the Spirit is of God.'9 And, if He is from God, how is He older than He from whom He is? And what madness also is it, since the Unbegotten is one, to say that something else is anterior to the Unbegotten! Moreover, He is not before the Only-begotten,10 for there is no intervening space between the Son and the Father. And, if He is not from God, but is through Christ, He does not exist at all. Therefore, the innovation about the rank [of the Holy Spirit] contains a rejection of His'very existence and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious to reduce Him to the level of a creature, or to place Him above either the Son or the Father whether according to time or to rank.
These, indeed, are the subjects about which I heard that your Reverences were inquiring, and, if the Lord should grant that we meet with each other, perhaps we may say something more on these points. We ourselves may also receive some certainty from you on matters abo\!t which we are inquiring.
8 Cf. Matt. 28.19.
9 Cf. I Cor. 2.12.
10 Cf. Letter lI8. where St. Basil argues this point.