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

To the same Amphilochius.in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give a variantdefinition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conceptionof Father, Son and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear. 2997 If we have no distinctperception of the separate characteristics, namely, fatherhood, sonship, and sanctification,but form our conception of God from the general idea of existence, we cannot possibly givea sound account of our faith. We must, therefore, confess the faith by adding the particularto the common. The Godhead is common; the fatherhood particular. We must thereforecombine the two and say, “I believe in God the Father.” The like course must be pursuedin the confession of the Son; we must combine the particular with the common and say “Ibelieve in God the Son,” so in the case of the Holy Ghost we must make our utterance conformto the appellation and say “in God 2998 the Holy Ghost.” Hence it results that there isa satisfactory preservation of the unity by the confession of the one Godhead, while in thedistinction of the individual properties regarded in each there is the confession of the peculiarproperties of the Persons. On the other hand those who identify essence or substanceand hypostasis are compelled to confess only three Persons, 2999 and, in their hesitation tospeak of three hypostases, are convicted of failure to avoid the error of Sabellius, for evenSabellius himself, who in many places confuses the conception, yet, by asserting that thesame hypostasis changed its form 3000 to meet the needs of the moment, does endeavour todistinguish persons.7. Lastly as to your enquiry in what manner things neutral and indifferent are ordainedfor us, whether by some chance working by its own accord, or by the righteous providenceof God, my answer is this: Health and sickness, riches and poverty, credit and discredit,2997 “ἀσύγχυτος,” unconfounded, or without confusion, is the title of Dialogue II. of Theodoret. cf. p. 195. n.2998 The Benedictine note is Videtur in Harlæano codice scriptum prima manu εις τὸν θεόν. Their readingis εις το θεῖον πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. cf. Ep. viii., § 2, where no variation of mss. is noted and Ep. cxli, both writtenbefore he was bishop. cf. Proleg. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. xliii., explains the rationale of St. Basil’s use of theword “God,” of the Holy Ghost; alike in his public and private teaching he never shrank from using it, wheneverhe could with impunity, and his opinions were perfectly well known, but he sought to avoid the sentence of exileat the hands of the Arians by its unnecessary obtrusion. He never uses it in his homily De Fide, and the wholetreatise De Spiritu Sancto, while it exhaustively vindicates the doctrine, ingeniously steers clear of the phrase.2999 πρόσωπα.3000 The Ben. Edd. note “Existimat Combefisius verbum μετασχηματίζεσθαι sic reddendum esse, in variousformas mutari. Sed id non dicebat Sabellius. Hoc tantum dicebat, ut legimus in Epist. ccxiv. Unum quidemhypostasi Deum esse, sed sub diversis personis a Scripturare præsentari. According to Dante the minds of theheresiarchs were to Scripture as bad mirrors, reflecting distorted images; and, in this sense, μετασχηματιζεινmight be applied rather to them. “Si fe Sabellio ed Arrio e quegli stolti, Che furon come spade alle scritture Inrender torti li diritti volti.” Par. xiii. 123 (see Cary’s note).771