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

To Eustathius the physician.does not even shrink from using this term in the case of things of a totally opposite character,as when it applies the title god to idols. “Let the gods,” it is written, “who have not madeheaven and earth, be taken away, and cast beneath the earth;” 2655 and again, “the gods ofthe nations are idols.” 2656 And the witch, when she called up the required spirits for Saul,is said to have seen gods. 2657 Balaam too, an augur and seer, with the oracles in his hand,as Scripture says, when he had got him the teaching of the demons by his divine ingenuity,is described by Scripture as taking counsel with God. 2658 From many similar instances inHoly Scripture it may be proved that the name of God has no pre-eminence over otherwords which are applied to the divine, since, as has been said, we find it employed withoutdistinction even in the case of things of quite opposite character. On the other hand we aretaught by Scripture that the names holy, incorruptible, righteous, and good, are nowhereindiscriminately used of unworthy objects. It follows, then, that if they do not deny thatthe Holy Spirit is associated with the Son and with the Father, in the names which are speciallyapplied, by the usage of true religion, to the divine nature alone, there is no reasonableground for refusing to allow the same association in the case of that word alone which, asI have shown, is used as a recognised homonym even of demons and idols.6. But they contend that this title sets forth the nature of that to which it is applied; thatthe nature of the Spirit is not a nature shared in common with that of Father and of Son;and that, for this reason, the Spirit ought not to be allowed the common use of the name.It is, therefore, for them to show by what means they have perceived this variation in thenature. If it were indeed possible for the divine nature to be contemplated in itself; couldwhat is proper to it and what is foreign to it be discovered by means of visible things; weshould then certainly stand in no need of words or other tokens to lead us to the apprehensionof the object of the enquiry. But the divine nature is too exalted to be perceived as objectsof enquiry are perceived, and about things which are beyond our knowledge we reason onprobable evidence. We are therefore of necessity guided in the investigation of the divinenature by its operations. Suppose we observe the operations of the Father, of the Son, ofthe Holy Ghost, to be different from one another, we shall then conjecture, from the diversityof the operations that the operating natures are also different. For it is impossible that thingswhich are distinct, as regards their nature, should be associated as regards the form of theiroperations; fire does not freeze; ice does not warm; difference of natures implies differenceof the operations proceeding from them. Grant, then, that we perceive the operation of2312655 Jer. x. 11, LXX.2656 Ps. xcvi. 5.2657 1 Sam. xxviii. 13.2658 Num. xxii. 20. Contrast Bp. Butler, Serm. vii.663