Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Series 2 - The Still Small ...

in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give a variant
definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception
of Father, Son and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear. 2997 If we have no distinct
perception of the separate characteristics, namely, fatherhood, sonship, and sanctification,
but form our conception of God from the general idea of existence, we cannot possibly give
a sound account of our faith. We must, therefore, confess the faith by adding the particular
to the common. The Godhead is common; the fatherhood particular. We must therefore
combine the two and say, “I believe in God the Father.” The like course must be pursued
in the confession of the Son; we must combine the particular with the common and say “I
believe in God the Son,” so in the case of the Holy Ghost we must make our utterance conform
to the appellation and say “in God 2998 the Holy Ghost.” Hence it results that there is
a satisfactory preservation of the unity by the confession of the one Godhead, while in the
distinction of the individual properties regarded in each there is the confession of the peculiar
properties of the Persons. On the other hand those who identify essence or substance
and hypostasis are compelled to confess only three Persons, 2999 and, in their hesitation to
speak of three hypostases, are convicted of failure to avoid the error of Sabellius, for even
Sabellius himself, who in many places confuses the conception, yet, by asserting that the
same hypostasis changed its form 3000 to meet the needs of the moment, does endeavour to
distinguish persons.
7. Lastly as to your enquiry in what manner things neutral and indifferent are ordained
for us, whether by some chance working by its own accord, or by the righteous providence
of God, my answer is this: Health and sickness, riches and poverty, credit and discredit,
2997 “ἀσύγχυτος,” unconfounded, or without confusion, is the title of Dialogue II. of Theodoret. cf. p. 195. n.
2998 The Benedictine note is Videtur in Harlæano codice scriptum prima manu εις τὸν θεόν. Their reading
is εις το θεῖον πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. cf. Ep. viii., § 2, where no variation of mss. is noted and Ep. cxli, both written
before he was bishop. cf. Proleg. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. xliii., explains the rationale of St. Basil’s use of the
word “God,” of the Holy Ghost; alike in his public and private teaching he never shrank from using it, whenever
he could with impunity, and his opinions were perfectly well known, but he sought to avoid the sentence of exile
at the hands of the Arians by its unnecessary obtrusion. He never uses it in his homily De Fide, and the whole
treatise De Spiritu Sancto, while it exhaustively vindicates the doctrine, ingeniously steers clear of the phrase.
2999 πρόσωπα.
3000 The Ben. Edd. note “Existimat Combefisius verbum μετασχηματίζεσθαι sic reddendum esse, in various
formas mutari. Sed id non dicebat Sabellius. Hoc tantum dicebat, ut legimus in Epist. ccxiv. Unum quidem
hypostasi Deum esse, sed sub diversis personis a Scripturare præsentari. According to Dante the minds of the
heresiarchs were to Scripture as bad mirrors, reflecting distorted images; and, in this sense, μετασχηματιζειν
might be applied rather to them. “Si fe Sabellio ed Arrio e quegli stolti, Che furon come spade alle scritture In
render torti li diritti volti.” Par. xiii. 123 (see Cary’s note).
To the same Amphilochius.
771