NPNF2-08. Basil: Letters and Select Works - Holy Bible Institute

That Scripture uses the words “in” or “by,” , cf. note on p. 3, in place of “with.” Whereinalso it is proved that the word “and” has the same force as “with.”Ghost shall I make, any difference in the sense? Of the connexion of names by means ofthe conjunction and the instances are many. We read “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christand the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost,” 1221 and again “I beseech youfor the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for the love of the Spirit.” 1222 Now if we wish to usewith instead of and, what difference shall we have made? I do not see; unless any one accordingto hard and fast grammatical rules might prefer the conjunction as copulative andmaking the union stronger, and reject the preposition as of inferior force. But if we had todefend ourselves on these points I do not suppose we should require a defence of manywords. As it is, their argument is not about syllables nor yet about this or that sound of aword, but about things differing most widely in power and in truth. It is for this reasonthat, while the use of the syllables is really a matter of no importance whatever, our opponentsare making the endeavour to authorise some syllables, and hunt out others from the Church.For my own part, although the usefulness of the word is obvious as soon as it is heard, I willnevertheless set forth the arguments which led our fathers to adopt the reasonable courseof employing the preposition “with.” 1223 It does indeed equally well with the preposition“and,” confute the mischief of Sabellius; 1224 and it sets forth quite as well as “and” the distinctionof the hypostases, as in the words “I and my Father will come,” 1225 and “I and myFather are one.” 1226 In addition to this the proof it contains of the eternal fellowship anduninterrupted conjunction is excellent. For to say that the Son is with the Father is to exhibit1221 2 Cor. xiii. 13.1222 Rom. xv. 30.1223 “St. Basil’s statement of the reason of the use of μετά, σύν, in the Doxology, is not confirmed by anyearlier or contemporary writer, as far as the editor is aware, nor is it contradicted.” Rev. C.F.H. Johnston.1224 “Sabellius has been usually assigned to the middle of third century, Mr. Clinton giving a.d. 256–270 ashis active period. The discovery of the Philosophumena of Hippolytus has proved this to be a mistake, andthrown his period back to the close of the second and beginning of the third century.…He was in full activityin Rome during the Episcopate of Zephyrinus, a.d. 198–217.” Professor Stokes in D. C. Biog. iv. 569. For Basil’sviews of Sabellianism vide Epp. CCX., CCXIV., CCXXXV. In his Hær. Fab. Conf. ii. 9 Theodoret writes:“Sabellius said that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were one Hypostasis; one Person under three names; and hedescribes the same now as Father, now as Son, now as Holy Ghost. He says that in the old Testament He gavelaws as Father, was incarnate in the new as Son, and visited the Apostles as Holy Ghost.” So in the ῎Εκθεσις τῆςκατὰ μέρος πίστεως, a work falsely attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, and possibly due to Apollinaris, (cf.Theod., Dial. iii.) “We shun Sabellius, who says that Father and Son are the same, calling Him who speaksFather, and the Word, remaining in the Father and at the time of creation manifested, and, on the completionof things returning to the Father, Son. He says the same of the Holy Ghost.”1225 Apparently an inexact reference to John xiv. 23.1226 John x. 30.221