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

Dogmatic.Son, no other word would have been revealed by the Spirit. 339 Why, if God begat, may wenot call that which was begotten a thing begotten? It is a terrible thing for us to coin namesfor Him to Whom God has given a “name which is above every name.” 340 We must notadd to or take from what is delivered to us by the Spirit. 341 Things are not made for names,but names for things. 342 Eunomius unhappily was led by distinction of name into distinctionof being. 343 If the Son is begotten in the sense in which Eunomius uses the word, He isneither begotten of the essence of God nor begotten from eternity. Eunomius representsthe Son as not of the essence of the Father, because begetting is only to be thought of as asensual act and idea, and therefore is entirely unthinkable in connexion with the being ofGod. “The essence of God does not admit of begetting; no other essence exists for the Son’sbegetting; therefore I say that the Son was begotten when non-existent.” 344 Basil rejoinsthat no analogy can hold between divine generation or begetting and human generation orbegetting. “Living beings which are subject to death generate through the operation of thesenses: but we must not on this account conceive of God in the same manner; nay, rathershall we be hence guided to the truth that, because corruptible beings operate in this manner,the Incorruptible will operate in an opposite manner.” 345 “All who have even a limitedloyalty to truth ought to dismiss all corporeal similitudes. They must be very careful not tosully their conceptions of God by material notions. They must follow the theologies 346 deliveredto us by the Holy Ghost. They must shun questions which are little better thanconundrums, and admit of a dangerous double meaning. Led by the ray that shines forthfrom light to the contemplation of the divine generation, they must think of a generationworthy of God, without passion, partition, division, or time. They must conceive of theimage of the invisible God not after the analogy of images which are subsequently fashionedby craft to match their archetype, but as of one nature and subsistence with the originatingprototype 347 .… 348 This image is not produced by imitation, for the whole nature of thexxxvi339 Id. ii. 7.340 Phil. ii. 9.341 Id. ii. 8.342 Id. ii. 4.343 Id. ii. 3.344 Id. ii. 18.345 Id. ii. 23.346 On the distinction between θεολογία and οἰκονομία, cf. p. 7, n.347 συνυπάρχουσαν καὶ παρυφεστηκυῖαν τῷ πρωτοτύπῳ ὑποστήσαντι. Expressions of this kind, used evenby Basil, may help to explain the earlier Nicene sense of ὑπόστασις. The Son has, as it were, a parallel hypostasisto that of the Father, Who eternally furnishes this hypostasis. cf. p. 195, n.348 Here the MSS. vary, but the main sense is not affected by the omission of the variant phrase.59