CHAPTER 6. He disputes with those who assert that the Son is
ST. BASIL THE GREAT
communion of natures. Paul in no way contradicts himself, but shows that these words can easily be interchanged.
From whom and through whom are used interchangeably for the same subjects, depending on the context of the passage, so how can anyone say that the phrases can be invariably distinguished from each other, falsely attempting to find fault with true religion?
CHAPTER 6. He disputes with those who assert that the Son is not with, but after the Father. Also concerning the equal glory of the Father and the Son.
13.
Our opponents, who attempt to defeat our argument with subtle technicalities, cannot even take refuge in pleading ignorance. Obviously they object because we finish the doxology by giving glory to the Father with the Only-begotten One, and do not exclude the Holy Spirit from this same glory. Because of this they call us innovators, revolutionaries, phrase-coiners, and who knows how many other insults. But I am so far from being unable to endure their abuse that, were it not for the fact that their loss causes me tears and continual sorrow, I could almost thank them for their blasphemy, because through them I have obtained a blessing. The Lord says, "Blessed are you when men shall revile you... for my sake." * These are the reasons for their vexation: they say that the Son is not equal with the Father, but comes after the Father.
Therefore it follows that glory should be ascribed to the Father through Him, but not with Him. With Him expresses equality but through Him indicates subordination. They
°° Mt. 5:11.
ON THE HOLY SPIRIT
further insist that the Spirit must not be ranked with the Father or the Son, but under the Father and the Son, not in the same order of things as they are, but beneath them, not numbered with them. With technical jargon of this kind they pervert the uncluttered simplicity of the faith. They will not allow anyone else to remain ignorant of these matters, and so by their meddlesomeness have forfeited any plea that the ignorant might have.
14.
First let us ask them this question: In what way do they say that the Son is after the Father? Is He later in time, or in rank, or in dignity? As far as time is concerned, no one is so senseless as to claim that the Maker of the ages holds a second place; no interval could possibly divide the natural union of Father and Son. Even limited human thought demonstrates that it is impossible for the Son to be younger that the Father; first, we cannot conceive of either apart from their relationship with each other, and second, the very idea of "coming later" is applied to something separated from the present by a smaller interval of time than something else which "came earlier." For instance, what happened in Noah's time precedes what happened to the men of Sodom because Noah is more remote from us that the men of Sodom, whose history seems closer to us because it is nearer to our own times. Now in addition to being impious, is it really not the height of folly to measure the life of Him who transcends all times and ages, whose existence is incalculably remote from the present? Things subject to birth and corruption are described as prior to one another; are we therefore to compare God the Father as superior to God the Son, who exists before the ages? The supreme eminence of the Father is inconceivable; thought and reflection are utterly unable to penetrate the begetting of the Lord. By means of two words St. John has admirably contained the concept within tangible bound-
ST. BASIL THE GREAT
aries: he says "In the beginning was the Word.""'
Thought cannot reach beyond was, or the imagination beginning. No matter how far your thoughts travel backward, you cannot get beyond the was. No matter how hard you strain to see what is beyond the Son, you will find it impossible to pass outside the confines of the beginning.
Therefore, true religion teaches us to think of the Son with the Father.
15.
If they think that the Son sits below the Father, in a lesser place, so that the Father sits above, and pushes the Son to the next seat below, let them say so, and we will be silent, since the absurdity of such a position will be immediately made clear. Their thoughts are so inconsistent that they will not admit that the Father fills all things. Anyone with a sound mind believes that God pervades everything, but these men divide up from down, not remembering the psalmist's words: "If I ascend to heaven,
Thou art there! If I make my bed in Sheol, Thou art there!" * Even if we ignore the stupidity of confining incorporeal beings in defined places, how can we possibly excuse their shameless attack upon Scripture? Look at the passages they contradict! "Sit at my right hand," ** and " ..He sat down at the right hand of the majesty of God." ° The expression "right hand' does not indicate a lower place as they contend, but a relationship of equality. It cannot be understood as the physical right hand, but rather the Scripture emphasizes the magnificence of the Son's great dignity. It remains for our opponents to explain how this phrase indicates inferior rank. Let them learn that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God," and the image of the invisible God, and the brightness of His glory," and the one whom God the Father has sn, tle 59 Ps, 110:1.
SUT Cored: 24.
88 Heb. 1:3.
58 Ps, 139:8.
60 Heb. 1:3.
SJiCol mle 15:
ON THE HOLY SPIRIT
sealed," whom the Father has stamped with the image of His Person. Are we to call these and other passages like them in the Scriptures evidence that the Son holds a lower place, or are they public proclamations of the Only-Begotten's majesty and of His equal glory with the Father?
Let them listen to the Lord Himself, who clearly declares that He shares equal glory and honor with the Father. He says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" * and "when the Son comes in the glory of His Father" ® and that "all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" " and "the only-begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father" * and "we have beheld His glory, glory as of the only-begotten of the Father." ® They ignore these passages, and then assign to the Son the place reserved for His enemies. The Father's bosom is a worthy throne for His Son, but the footstool is reserved for those who have been forced to fall down before it." We have only examined these passages briefly, in order to pass on to other questions. You may assemble these proofs at your leisure, and then you will see the exalted glory and preeminent power of the Only-Begotten. This evidence is not insignificant to the well-disposed listener, unless the terms "right hand" and "bosom" are interpreted in a fallen, fleshly sense, and used in an attempt to confine God within prescribed boundaries. Form, shape, and bodily position cannot be invented for God; these factors are alien to the absolute, the infinite, the incorporeal. What is worse, these ideas are derogatory to the Father when applied to the Son. They cannot reduce the Son's dignity, but those who repeat them incur the charge of blaspheming God, since any boldness directed to the Son is by logical necessity transferred to the Father. If someone assigns a higher place to the Father as His due, and says that the Sar Ore le 66 Mk. 8:38.
6 Jn, 1:18.
70 Cf. Ps. 110:1.
% Jn. 14:9.
Stn 52235 con. ts4e
ST. BASIL THE GREAT
Only-Begotten Son sits below, he will discover himself to have imagined God to possess physical properties. These fantasies and delusions come from drunkenness and insanity. The Lord taught men that "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father;"" how then can anyone be part of true religion who refuses to worship and glorify with the Father Him who is joined to the Father in nature, glory, and dignity? What more can we say?
What just defense shall we have on the dread day of universal judgment? The Lord has clearly announced that He will come in the glory of His Father." Stephen saw
Jesus standing at the right hand of God;" Paul testified in the Spirit concerning Christ, that He is at the right hand of God;™ the Father has said, "Sit at my right hand," * and the Holy Spirit testifies that He sat down at the right hand of the majesty of God." He shares the throne and the honor; shall we attempt to degrade Him from His seat of equality to a lower place? Sitting, as opposed to standing, indicates that a nature is entirely fixed and stable. When Baruch wishes to describe God's immutability and immobility, he says, "Thou sittest forever while we are forever passing away."
The place on the right hand denotes equal dignity. How is it not reckless to rob the Son of His position of equality in the doxology, as if He deserved to be ranked in a lower place?
Jn: 5:23: a Acts:7.*5 5).
™ Ps, 110:1. fUBar: 323.
Mt. 16:27.
™Rom. 8:34.
7 Heb. 8:1.