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

Dogmatic.Father is expressed in the Son as on a seal.” 349 “Do not press me with the questions: Whatis the generation? Of what kind was it? In what manner could it be effected? The manneris ineffable, and wholly beyond the scope of our intelligence; but we shall not on this accountthrow away the foundation of our faith in Father and Son. If we try to measure everythingby our comprehension, and to suppose that what we cannot comprehend by our reasoningis wholly non-existent, farewell to the reward of faith; farewell to the reward of hope! If weonly follow what is clear to our reason, how can we be deemed worthy of the blessings instore for the reward of faith in things not seen”? 350If not of the essence of God, the Son could not be held to be eternal. “How utterly absurd,”exclaims Basil, “to deny the glory of God to have had brightness; 351 to deny the wisdomof God to have been ever with God!…The Father is of eternity. So also is the Son of eternity,united by generation to the unbegotten nature of the Father. This is not my own statement.I shall prove it by quoting the words of Scripture. Let me cite from the Gospel ‘In the beginningwas the Word,’ 352 and from the Psalm, other words spoken as in the person of theFather, ‘From the womb before the morning I have begotten them.’ 353 Let us put both together,and say, He was, and He was begotten.…How absurd to seek for something higherin the case of the unoriginate and the unbegotten! Just as absurd is it to start questions asto time, about priority in the case of Him Who was with the Father from eternity, andbetween Whom and Him that begat Him there is no interval.” 354A dilemma put by Eunomius was the following: When God begat the Son, the Soneither was or was not. 355 If He was not, no argument could lie against Eunomius and theArians. If He was, the position is blasphemous and absurd, for that which is needs no begetting.356To meet this dilemma, Basil drew a distinction between eternity and the being unoriginate.357 The Eunomians, from the fact of the unoriginateness of the Father being calledeternity, maintained that unoriginateness and eternity are identical. 358 Because the Son isnot unbegotten they do not even allow Him to be eternal. But there is a wide distinction to349 Id. ii. 16. cf. De Sp. Scto. § 15, p. 9, and § 84, p. 40, and notes.350 Id. ii. 24.351 ἀπαύγασμα. cf. Heb. i. 13.352 John i. 1.353 Ps. cx. 3, LXX.354 Id. ii. 17.355 Ητοι ὄντα ἐγέννησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Υιὸν, ἢ οὐκ ὄντα.356 Id. ii. 14.357 cf. De. Sp. Scto. pp. 27, 30, and notes.358 ταυτὸν τῷ ἀνάρχῳ τὸ ἀ& 188·διον.60