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

To Eustathius the physician.and do not even allow him to be a Christian. No sooner do they hear this than Sabellius ishandy for them to urge against me, and it is noised abroad that my teaching is tainted withhis error. Once more I hold out in my defence my wonted weapon of truth, and demonstratethat I shudder at Sabellianism as much as at Judaism.3. What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all.They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of threehypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In thisthey are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom doesnot accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider itfair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy.If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competentfor me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we areclearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us;and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour ofthat side will be cast the vote of truth. What then is the charge? Two points are advancedat one and the same time in the accusations levelled against me. I am accused on the onehand of parting the hypostases asunder; on the other of never using in the plural any oneof the nouns relating to the Divinity, but of always speaking in the singular number of oneGoodness, as I have already said; of one Power; one Godhead; and so on. As to the partingof the hypostases, there ought to be no objection nor opposition on the part of those whoassert in the case of the divine nature a distinction of essences. For it is unreasonable tomaintain three essences and to object to three hypostases. Nothing, then, is left but thecharge of using words of the divine nature in the singulars.4. I have quite a little difficulty in meeting the second charge. Whoever condemnsthose who assert that the Godhead is one, must of necessity agree with all who maintainmany godheads, or with those who maintain that there is none. No third position is conceivable.The teaching of inspired Scripture does not allow of our speaking of many godheads,but, wherever it mentions the Godhead, speaks of it in the singular number; as, for instance,“in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” 2653 And again; “for the invisiblethings of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the thingsthat are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” 2654 If, then, to multiply godheads isthe special mark of the victims of polytheistic error, and to deny the Godhead altogether is2653 Col. ii. 9.2654 Rom. i. 20.661