Table of Contents

AUTHORS AND WORKS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME XXXII

SAINT BASIL THE GREAT, ARCHBISHOP OF CAESAREA IN CAPPADOCIA

Book on the Holy Spirit — col. 67 Letters — 219 APPENDIX TO THIS VOLUME. Twenty-four sermons on morals by Simeon the Logothete, excerpted from the works of Basil — 1145

The reader should be advised that we have relegated to the Oriental series certain of Basil’s short works which have recently appeared in Syriac.

PREFACE. IN WHICH MANY MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE DOCTRINE OF ST. BASIL ARE DISCUSSED.

This volume contains most illustrious monuments of antiquity, the book of St. Basil *On the Holy Spirit*, and his Epistles. The name of St. Basil is surely a great commendation for any work; for nothing has proceeded from his genius that could appear average or merely tolerable. But the books *On the Holy Spirit* have a greater value, because Basil took them up, well-exercised through long usage in overcoming heresies, and with the utmost zeal, so that in a time needing great defenses of doctrine, he worked them out with invincible strength of mind, in order to stand against powerful heretics. In the Epistles of St. Basil, the ancient discipline is illustrated by excellent institutions and canons, ecclesiastical history is enriched with a rich and copious harvest of deeds, and morals are formed by the best precepts, and, which surpasses precepts by far, by the excellent virtues of St. Basil portrayed without artifice. Nor should what has been gathered into the appendix be disparaged: twenty-four orations constructed by Simeon Logothetes from the words and sentiments of St. Basil, and the book *On Virginity*, having as its author a bishop equal or certainly nearly equal to St. Basil. ^A

But the more these monuments are valued, the more it was to be feared that a long delay would displease many; and because this volume is produced after an interval of eight years, we might appear to have had less concern for the public good. Yet it was not negligence, but necessary causes that brought about the delays. For the learned colleague who undertook the care of editing the works of St. Basil had already been seized by a grave illness when he brought the second volume to light. ^B Driven by a desire to deserve well of ecclesiastical and literary matters, he was spurred even by the task he had finished to prepare the third volume, against his own failing health. But an encroaching disease broke off his languid efforts, and he had scarcely revised half of his interpretation, having added the historical notes from Tillemont—which, once the plan for writing a Life of St. Basil had been abandoned, he deemed necessary; he had scarcely, I say, accomplished these things, when his strength entirely failed, and at last he concluded a pious and laudable life with a death precious in the sight of the Lord, on the 3rd of June, 1725. To the longing which the ornaments of his virtues had impressed upon the minds of us all, there was added an annoyance, that the work expected by scholars, and which many had long since bought with their own money, could not, however, be quickly committed to their hands and judgments. For now everyone understands how much labor and work had to be expended, not indeed in unfolding manuscript codices (for they had been diligently collated with the printed editions, except for the Harley manuscript, which stood as the greatest help along with the Medici and Coislin manuscripts), but in other matters ^C which are necessary for an accurate edition, especially in arranging the epistles in chronological order, and in tidying up the Life of St. Basil and explaining his doctrine, which is what we must now approach, having dispensed with a longer introduction.

§ I.

I. St. Basil interprets less conveniently that of the Nicene Synod, *from another essence or hypostasis*. II. But he rightly denies that one hypostasis in three persons was admitted by the Synod. Even the defenders of the three hypostases themselves often take *hypostasis* for *essence*. III. Novelty of one hypostasis. IV. Three hypostases are found among writers older than the Nicene Synod. V. What the Nicene Synod meant is looked at from St. Alexander and St. Athanasius. VI. The opinion of the Westerners concerning hypostasis. In what sense the same word was used in secular schools.

I. St. Basil, as he was the most fervent defender of the three hypostases, did not wish to concede to his adversaries that the word *hypostasis* had been used by the Nicene Synod in the same sense as *essence*. Petavius (1) refutes Basil’s interpretation and impugns it with this argument: that those Fathers who were present at that Synod, or who flourished certainly a little after it, both in other synods and individually, took *hypostasis* for *essence*. This they would never have done if they had done the contrary at Nicaea before. Two points are contained in this opinion of Petavius, which we must distinguish, although he himself does not distinguish them: for he contends not only that *hypostasis* was taken for *essence* by the Nicene Fathers in this place, but also that one hypostasis in three persons was admitted by this Synod and by others whom he cites. We must therefore examine whether Basil is to be censured on both counts—both that he denied that *hypostasis* meant the same as *essence* in the Nicene faith, and that he denied that one hypostasis in three persons was admitted by the Synod.

The place from which the subject of doubt arose is read in the formula of faith subscribed by Eustathius at Basil’s request, which is epistle 125, formerly 78 among the Basiliana. There, the Sabellians are said to abuse these words of the Synod: "If anyone says [Christ] is from another essence or hypostasis, the Catholic and..." ^D

^A apostolic Church strikes him with anathema." It is then added: "For they did not there speak of essence and hypostasis as the same thing. For if the words denoted one and the same notion, what need was there for both? But it is clear that, just as they rejected those who denied that He is of the Father's essence, so also [they rejected] those who claimed He was of some other hypostasis—both as alien to the ecclesiastical frame of mind. For where they declared their own opinion, they said the Son is of the essence of the Father; they did not add: and of the hypostasis." For they did not say there that essence and hypostasis are the same. Indeed, if one and the same notion were subject to the words, what need was there for both? But it is clear that, while some denied (the Son) is of the Father's essence, others said He is not of the essence, but of some other hypostasis, they rejected both opinions as alien to the ecclesiastical sentiment. For where they declared their own opinion, they said the Son is of the essence of the Father, no longer adding that phrase: "of the hypostasis."

It is not easy to determine which heretics Basil says were noted by the Synod for deducing the Son’s origin from a hypostasis other than the Father's. ^B It seems he may mean the Valentinians, as Petavius thinks, who asserted that Jesus was fashioned as if from a voluntary contribution by the aeons; or the Gnostics in general, who pretended that Christ was not the Son of the Creator of the world, but the son of some unknown god. Combefisius thinks [the text] should be read, as it is in one manuscript: *ex essentia*, while others say He is indeed from the essence, but from another hypostasis. But this method of emending brings neither light nor reduces the difficulty. For my part, I would not ungrudgingly concede to Petavius that the Synod said nothing at all about such heretics, nor that Basil relies on a sufficiently firm argument when he contends that by these words, "from another essence or hypostasis," two things are signified. For nothing prevents the same opinion from being confirmed in diverse words: nor is this proposition condemned in the Nicene Creed, "There was a time when He was not," dissimilar to the following one, "He was not before He was born." It seems, therefore, that the same thing happened to Basil as sometimes happens to those defending a most excellent opinion, that in solving the objections of adversaries, they proceed less conveniently. For it is difficult not to confess that by these words, "from another ^C hypostasis," essence is signified. But this is the most trivial blemish in Basil, and does not reach the sum of the cause, which turned entirely on this hinge: whether the Nicene Synod had admitted one hypostasis in three persons. Even if Basil repeats the explanation of a single testimony at too great a length, and even if he is unwilling to concede to adversaries what he could have conceded while his cause remained intact; he certainly perceived the mind of the Synod most accurately in that he denied that three hypostases were abolished by it. And this we must examine a little more accurately, and demonstrate that the Nicene Synod, even if it sometimes used hypostasis for essence in this place, did not on that account admit one hypostasis in the three persons.

But other theologians, especially Thomassin, who in the third book of *De incarnatione Verbi*, ch. 1, contends that the name hypostasis was not distinguished from *usia* or essence until the fourth century of the Church was waning, and he attempts to prove this by adducing testimonies of the Synod of Nicaea and Athanasius.

II. ^D Many learned men have been troubled by the signification of the word hypostasis, as it is sometimes used for essence; and as often as they see hypostasis used in this sense among ancient writers, they conclude from this that one hypostasis is pleasing to those writers. But this conclusion of reasoning is highly erroneous. For Basil, the most acerbic defender of the three hypostases, often accepts hypostasis in this sense. He says in the book *De Spiritu sancto*, ch. 16, p. 33, that the Holy Spirit confers His grace upon the angels, *εἰς τὸν ἀπαρτισμὸν καὶ συμπλήρωσιν τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτῶν*, "in order that their substance may be perfected and completed." In this place, *hypostasis* cannot be accepted as anything other than *ousia*. Hence in the same chapter, p. 32, holiness is said to be outside of the substance of the angels, *ἔξωθεν τῆς οὐσίας*, because they receive holiness from the Holy Spirit, and do not have it from their own essence. Similarly, lib. v *adversus Eunom.*, p. 321, all the substance of the just is said to be sanctified by the Spirit: *Πᾶσα ὑπόστασις δικαίων... ἡγίασται*. In the second book, p. 252, he says the whole nature of the Father is imprinted in the Son as in a seal: or just as the substance of the arts passes entirely from the teachers into the disciples, *ὁποία τῶν τεχνῶν ἡ ὑπόστασις ἐκ τῶν διδασκόντων ὅλη τοῖς μαθητευομένοις ἐγγινομένη*.

Gregory Nazianzen, whose consensus with Basil in defending the three hypostases was supreme, designates the divine essence by the name of hypostasis in Orat. 34, p. 542, where he speaks thus concerning God and those things which are predicated about God: *Τί γὰρ ὄντι αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν ὑπόστασιν, ὑπάρχει τὸ μὴ ἀρχὴν ἔχειν μηδὲ ἐξίστασθαι, μηδὲ περατοῦσθαι, ἀλλὰ ὅλον τὸ εἶναι περιλαμβάνειν, λείπεται προσφιλοσοφεῖν τε καὶ προσεξετάζειν*; "For what remains to be philosophized and examined further concerning Him who exists according to nature and hypostasis, that it pertains to Him neither to have a beginning, nor to undergo change, nor to be limited, but to embrace the whole of being?"

Cyril of Jerusalem, whom it is established was most closely linked with St. Meletius and other defenders of the three hypostases, sometimes understands substance by the name of hypostasis. For he speaks thus in *cat.* 6, n. 5: *Ἀκατάληπτός ἐστιν ἡ ὑπόστασις ἡ θεία*— "The divine substance is incomprehensible"; and in *cat.* 16, speaking of the Spirit, he says: *Φύσιν δὲ ἢ ὑπόστασιν μὴ πολυπραγμόνει*— "Do not curiously investigate nature or substance." Thus also Epiphanius sometimes takes *hypostasis* for *ousia*, as when he says *hæres.* LXXIV, n. 4, "One...

^A divinity of the same power, of the same hypostasis." Yet he held the same opinion, that it was necessary to confess three hypostases, and he had written this to Basil in plain words, who praises this doctrine of his highly in epist. 258. Wherefore the context of Epiphanius in *Ancoratus*, n. 6, is not without fault, where it is read thus: "For if you say 'consubstantial,' you have dissolved the power of Sabellius; for where 'consubstantial' is, it is indicative of one hypostasis." That a negation must be added and it should be read "not one," Petavius himself saw, who interprets it thus: "By using the word 'consubstantial,' you break the strength of Sabellius: for the word 'consubstantial' does not signify a singular hypostasis."

The arguments of Petavius therefore fall, and from the examples brought forward it is perceived that *hypostasis* can sometimes be taken for *ousia*, even though three hypostases are admitted; and consequently, the Nicene Fathers, even if they took *hypostasis* for *ousia*, did not therefore decree one *hypostasis* in the three persons. Nor is the explanation of this matter to be sought far. For although essence is that which is common to the three persons, and *hypostasis* that which is proper; yet often *hypostasis* is included under the name of essence, and conversely *hypostasis* itself includes essence. For when essence or nature is considered, insofar as it is joined with personal properties, or with *hypostasis*, then it is used in the same sense as person or *hypostasis*: hence St. Alexander of Alexandria, ^C whose words we shall soon relate, calls the Father and the Son two natural hypostases. So also *hypostasis*, when it is considered insofar as it is joined with essence, is sometimes taken for essence. Therefore, as the holy Fathers, although they sometimes take essence for *hypostasis* or person, do not on that account admit three essences; so from the fact that they sometimes take *hypostasis* for essence, it does not follow that they admit one *hypostasis*.

III. But now our defense of Basil must be carried further: for thus far it has been proven that one *hypostasis* is unjustly attributed to the Nicene Synod: now it must be proven that three hypostases were always used in the East with the highest consensus, at least from the time of Sabellius and Noetus; and that they had no adversaries, except for certain Antiochians, whom the Latins, offended by this word due to the poverty of their own language, drew into their own opinion. That very controversy which arose concerning the hypostases demonstrates to us by an excellent argument the perpetual doctrine of the East. For we learn from Gregory Nazianzen that ^D three hypostases, before this dissension arose, had been held by the usage of the Oriental Church, with no one dissenting. For thus St. Gregory speaks in *orat.* 21, p. 395: "For of the one essence and the three hypostases, though spoken of piously by us—for the one signifies the nature of the Godhead, but the other [signifies] the properties of the three—[they were] nevertheless among the Italians likewise, but, because they could not, due to the narrowness of their language and the poverty of names among them, separate the *hypostasis* from the essence, and on that account introduced the 'persons' [they use 'persons' instead]: lest three essences be demonstrated, what happens? How truly ridiculous or pitiable! A difference of faith it seemed, or a quibbling about the sound of words." For when one essence and three hypostases were piously said by us (of which the one declares the nature of the divinity, the other the properties of the three persons), and indeed were being understood in the same way among the Romans, yet because of the narrowness of that language and the poverty of words, they could not distinguish *hypostasis* from essence, and in this way it came about that, lest they should seem to admit three substances, they introduced the word "persons," what finally happened? Truly a ridiculous, or rather a pitiable thing: that light and empty squabble about the sound of words presented the appearance of a different faith.

We have, therefore, the origin and beginning of the whole dissension regarding one *hypostasis*. Before the poverty of the Latin language caused trouble in interpreting the word *hypostasis*, there was no controversy among the Greeks on that matter, no variety: and consequently not only the Nicene Fathers, but as many as used the word *hypostasis* to express the dogma, did not say one *hypostasis*, but three hypostases. The testimony of Gregory is confirmed by Acacius of Beroea, who speaks thus in Cyril of Alexandria, *epist.* 43: "Blessed Paulinus," he says, "refused to say three hypostases openly, although he felt and preached with the same virtue and truth." But he followed the most pious bishops of the West because the Roman language is too narrow to be able to say "three hypostases" according to our Greek phrase.

That would also demonstrate the novelty of the "one hypostasis," in that when a certain confession of faith had been attached by some to the epistle of the Sardican synod, in which one *hypostasis* was handed down as apostolic doctrine, the Alexandrian synod rejected this confession of faith as spurious, and urged the Antiochians (2), that they should allow it neither to be read nor produced. Eusebius of Vercelli, in subscribing, declares that it should not even be produced.

IV. But the testimonies of ecclesiastical writers provide us with the chief argument, both of those who flourished before the Nicene Council, and of those who were present at the synod, or who wrote after it. Truly no one can be produced who said there is one *hypostasis* in the three persons: but as many as have used the word *hypostasis* in explaining the mystery of the Trinity number three hypostases with the highest consensus. Origen, *tom.* II *in Joannem*, p. 56, thus pronounces against the Sabellians: "We, however, are persuaded that there are three hypostases: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." He refutes, in book VIII *against Celsus*

^A regarding its properties in each person, he was considering.

Athanasius does not depart from the footsteps of his excellent predecessor and master, who, toward the end of the book he wrote on the words of the Lord, "All things have been handed over to me" (Luke X, 22), speaks thus (page 108): "For these three venerable living beings to offer the doxology, 'Holy, holy, holy,' saying such things, shows that there are three perfect hypostases." And in the book *On the Incarnation of God the Word* (page 878): "For there is one deity and one God in three hypostases." Hypostasis is taken in the same sense in the book, *That Christ is one*. Some do reject this latter work as belonging to Athanasius, and concerning the [authenticity of the] second, there is not altogether a lack of room for doubt. But the former is called into doubt by no one; if, however, you except Tillemont, who confesses that he is held back from attributing this work most certainly to Athanasius by this very thing, that this testimony regarding three hypostases seems to fight against three other places in Athanasius, in which the holy Father takes *hypostasis* for *essence* [ousia], namely in the *Epistle to the Africans*, in the book *On the Synods*, and in the fourth oration *Against the Arians*. But even if we grant that in these places, which Petavius brought forward as an argument, *hypostasis* is the same thing as *essence*, surely Athanasius does not say that there is one *hypostasis* in three persons, but he does the same thing which we demonstrated was done by the fiercest defenders of the three hypostases. ^B Yet, if you except the book *On the Synods*, where he says that Basil of Ancyra confesses that the Son is from the Father’s essence and not from another *hypostasis* (ὑποστάσεως), in the other two testimonies [the term] can be recalled to the person of the *hypostasis* itself. For thus he speaks in the *Epistle to the Africans* (page 894): "The *hypostasis* is essence, and it has no other meaning than that very thing that is; which Jeremiah calls 'existence' (ὕπαρξιν), saying: 'And they did not hear the voice of existence' (Jer. IX, 10)." Hypostasis, moreover, is substance, nor does it have any other meaning than this very thing that is, which Jeremiah calls *existential*, or existence, saying: "And they did not hear the voice of my existence." For *hypostasis* and *substance* are the same thing as *existential*, or existence: for it is and it exists. And in the fourth oration *Against the Arians* (page 617): ^C just as there is one beginning and consequently one God, so that which most truly is essence and hypostasis is one, which says: "I am who I am" (Exod. III, 14), and not two, lest, clearly, there be two princi- [ples].

^A In the first testimony Athanasius wondrously agrees with the other Greek Fathers, who opposed the name "hypostasis" to the heretics who denied that the Word and the Holy Spirit exist, and who therefore defended three hypostases. In the other he manifestly designates the Father, and proves the unity of the deity from this, that only the Father is the beginning, from whom come the two other persons.

And even if Athanasius had admitted one hypostasis in other works, that could subtract nothing from the testimony which we have brought forth from the book, *All things have been delivered unto me*. For this little work was written before the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia, that is, before the year 342. At that time the controversy over "hypostasis" had not yet grown rampant; nor was there any reason why Athanasius should avoid that manner of speaking which not only Alexander, but also Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria had used. Wherefore, even if a close connection with the Latins and the Antiochenes had brought Athanasius to the profession of one hypostasis, his earlier writings ought not for that reason fall into doubt. But nevertheless, it is permitted to assert that he nowhere sets one hypostasis in three persons; rather, from his fourth oration against the Arians I shall bring forth two testimonies in which he uses "hypostasis" in the same sense as do Origen and St. Alexander. Thus, therefore, he speaks at n. 25, p. 636: ^B *Quocirca insanit profecto Arius*—"Wherefore Arius is certainly mad when he says that the Son is from things that are not, and that there was a time when he was not; and Sabellius is likewise mad when he teaches that the Father is the Son, and conversely that the Son is the Father, one in hypostasis but two in name." And toward the end of the same oration: ^C *Rectum est igitur quod ait beatus Petrus*—"It is right, therefore, what blessed Peter says, who proclaims the true divinity of the Only-begotten, and does not separate the hypostasis of the Word of God from the man assumed from Mary." In this last testimony, "hypostasis" is much more aptly referred to person than to substance. In the first, however, Petavius contends that it is not person, but only that which truly exists, that should be understood. But he cannot deny that one hypostasis is rejected. Furthermore, the holy Fathers defended three hypostases for no other purpose than to prove that the Son and the Spirit are not mere operations and persons in name only, but that the Son truly exists as Son, and the Holy Spirit truly as Spirit. Athanasius speaks to the exact same sentiment when he does not suffer the Father and Son to be called one in hypostasis. In this he agrees with his predecessor, who recognizes two hypostases in the Father and the Son; he agrees with Basil, who teaches that one God in hypostasis is preached by Sabellius, Epist. 214, n. 3. I shall add one more place of Athanasius, in which he manifestly admits three hypostases, as did both Dionysii above. ^D *τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις*—"three hypostases," he says in the *Exposition of the Faith*, n. 2, "separated in themselves, as it is possible to think of them corporally in men." "Neither is it permitted to think of three hypostases divided of themselves, as happens in men according to the nature of bodies, in God."

We have a much richer store of witnesses after the council: for if we were to enumerate the individual Greek writers of the fourth century, there would be just as many defenders of three hypostases, to whom must also be added the first Council of Constantinople, that is, the second ecumenical council. For this synod teaches in its letter to Damasus that there is one essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, *ἐν τρισὶ τελείαις ὑποστάσεσιν*, in three perfect hypostases, or three perfect persons. I will not use the authority of Gelasius of Cyzicus, who in the *Acts of the Council of Nicea* introduces Hosius (part 2, c. 12) responding by the mandate and decree of the whole synod and preaching *τριάδα ὑποστάσεων*. For there is no one who attributes much to the testimony of this writer. But Petavius admits that in the following centuries there existed the highest consensus of the Greeks in preaching three hypostases.

VI. The Westerners themselves gladly adopted the same manner of speaking to their own uses, after the difficulty regarding the word "subsistence" had vanished. And indeed, that happened in the fifth century. But yet they seem to have perceived long before that three hypostases were very conveniently used in the Greek tongue. This is gathered from the letter of Basil, n. 4, where he speaks thus: ^A "Concerning the fact that hypostasis and essence are not the same thing, the Western brothers themselves, as I think, have indicated this when, fearing the narrowness of their own language, they handed down the name of 'essence' in the Greek tongue, so that, if there were any difference of meaning, it might be preserved in the clear and unmixed distinction of the names." Moreover, Damasus himself seems to have admitted three hypostases. For in his letter to Paulinus he preaches one God in three hypostases: ^B "one God in three hypostases." These last words seem spurious to the most learned editor of the letters of the Roman pontiffs because they are missing from the Latin exemplars. But yet they could be confirmed by the testimony of Flavian, who speaks to Paulinus before the master of soldiers, as found in Theodoret, book V, c. 3, p. 201: "If you embrace the communion of Damasus, O friend, show us clearly our kinship in dogmas. For he, indeed, while confessing one essence of the Trinity, explicitly proclaims three hypostases; but you, conversely, destroy the Trinity of the hypostases." If you embrace the communion of Damasus, O friend, show us clearly the kinship of our doctrines. For he, indeed, while confessing one essence of the Trinity, explicitly proclaims three hypostases; but you, conversely, destroy the Trinity of the hypostases. If you embrace the communion of Damasus, O friend, show us clearly the manifest similarity of doctrines. For he, indeed, while confessing one and the same substance of the Trinity, ^C confesses three hypostases explicitly.

^A You, on the contrary, abolish the Trinitarian hypostases. From these things it is evident that Damasus had issued some monument of his consensus with the Greeks, which was known and attested to by all in the East. For Paulinus could offer no response at all, as Theodoret attests. However, no monument more appropriate seems capable of being brought forward in which Damasus performed this duty than his epistle to Paulinus. Petavius raises an objection regarding the epistle of the Roman synod under the same Damasus, in which one hypostasis and essence is taught. But we have proven that the term "hypostasis" is deservedly absent in the Latin manuscripts, see the note to epistle 93, p. 186.

I deem it possible for me to conclude from these things that there existed absolutely no one among the Oriental Catholics who admitted one hypostasis in three persons, except Paulinus of Antioch and his friends. Nor do I fear even to say that the three hypostases were disparaged by St. Jerome undeservedly, as if it were a manner of speaking not accurate on its own. "The whole school of secular letters," he says in the epistle to Pope Damasus, "recognizes nothing else as hypostasis but *ousia*: and will anyone, I ask, with sacrilegious mouth preach three substances?" Although St. Jerome abounded in erudition, nevertheless, opinions anticipated in this matter seem to have deluded him. For Budé, and after him Henry Stephens, observe that the term "hypostasis" is often used among ancient writers for those things that truly exist, and is opposed to those things which exist only in appearance or in the faculty of thought. Whence Budé in his *Commentaries* brings forward this passage of Aristotle in *De Mundo*, chapter 4: "Summarily, of those phenomena appearing in the air, some exist according to appearance, others according to hypostasis." In sum, of those things which appear in the air, some exist only by appearance, others also possess hypostasis. He also adds that remark of Themistius in *Phys.* II: "Those things which cannot be separated even by reason, these they separate also by hypostasis." Those things which cannot be separated even by reason, these they separate also by hypostasis. Since, therefore, "hypostasis" is opposed to those things which exist only by reason or by appearance, the holy Fathers, to show that the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Spirit truly Spirit, rightly preached three hypostases against Sabellius and Noetus, who, although they said there were three persons—as Basil attests in epistle 214, n. 3—yet twisted this name of "person" to metaphorical senses; something had to be opposed to them that they could not likewise evade. But there is nothing more appropriate for this purpose, nothing more significant than the word "hypostasis." Whence Sabellius contended that God was absolutely one in hypostasis, as Basil testifies in the same place.

^B However, he will perhaps be accused by some on this account, that, swept away by excessive zeal, he departed from the temperaments prescribed in the Synod of Alexandria. For when he had heard in the year 375 that Paulinus, having received most honorable letters from Rome, was being carried away with vehemence, and that he wished to join his friends with the Church of St. Meletius, and was exerting himself to draw Terentius to his own side, he immediately wrote to this count, so as to preempt his mind, or if any opinion of an adversary had already preoccupied him, to uproot it completely. In this epistle, however, he sets forth his own opinion concerning the hypostases in this way: "Not indeed, however, for this reason are we able at any time to persuade ourselves either to be ignorant of Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to deem the questions, for the sake of which the division arose from the beginning, as trivial, and to think that there is little difference regarding the goal of piety. For I, indeed, as no one who, having received a letter from men, thinks highly of himself on its account, for this reason will I ever concede to retreat; but not even if it came from the heavens themselves, if it does not accord with the sound word of faith, am I able to consider him a communicant of the saints." ^C Yet, on that account, I could never persuade myself that I should either ignore Meletius, or forget the Church over which he presides, or think the questions, from which the dissension was born from the beginning, as paltry and of little moment for the purpose of piety. For I, indeed, not only, if anyone is carried away on account of a letter received from men, will I not for that reason allow myself ever to be drawn away or led astray: but not even if it were sent from the heavens themselves, and he did not profess the sound doctrine of the faith, am I able to consider him a participant in the communion of the saints. But why he feels this way about this question and about Paulinus, he brings forward this reason: because Paulinus, while admitting one hypostasis and three perfect persons, does not depart in this from Sabellius, who had likewise admitted one hypostasis and three persons. Wherefore Basil contends that communion with such men, who profess one hypostasis, could not be entered into without the gravest inconveniences: "For what could be more grievous than this calumny, and more able to unsettle the many, than if some appeared to be saying that there is one hypostasis of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?" ^D However, what could be more serious than this calumny, and more apt to move many, than if some of us should appear to say that there is only one hypostasis of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? To the same sentiment he thus addresses Epiphanius in epistle 258, n. 3: "And that also sufficiently cheered my soul, which was added by your precision to those other things that were well and accurately theologized: that it is necessary to acknowledge three hypostases. So that this also, let the brethren at Antioch be taught by you; but they were certainly taught it, I presume, for you would not, obviously, have chosen communion with them, had you not secured this point regarding them most of all." But that indeed also greatly refreshed my spirit, that [he added] with the diligence with which he treated the rest excellently and accurately,

§ II. I. St. Basil seems at first sight to contend with St. Athanasius and St. Gregory in defending the three hypostases. II. Nevertheless, he does not depart from the requisite moderation of spirit. In what sense he judged this question to be of great moment. In what sense he denied that communion must be entered into with the defenders of one hypostasis. I. Although St. Basil, in defending the three...

^A hypostases, seemed to be required to confess them. Therefore, let the brothers of Antioch be instructed by you in this also; but they are certainly already instructed: for their embrace would surely not be communion, unless you had been most especially cautious on this head.

These things seem at first sight to clash with the judgment of Gregory of Nazianzus on this issue, and the supreme moderation of spirit shown by Athanasius in settling the discord. For this controversy seems to Gregory (Orat. 21, p. 396) a thing utterly ridiculous or miserable, ὡς λίαν γελοῖον ἢ ἐλεεινόν; a light and empty squabble about the sound of words, ἡ περὶ τὸν ἦχον μικρολογία. He praises Athanasius with full hands, who, having received both sides gently and kindly, and having diligently and accurately weighed the meaning of their words, after he found them in agreement, and in no way dissenting from each other regarding doctrine, settled the affair in such a way that while conceding the use of names, he constrained them ^B by the realities. Does Basil therefore fight with Gregory and Athanasius, and consider that to be of great moment for piety, which they judged to be of very slight moment? Does he rule that it is necessary to confess that which they left to the judgment of each individual; and does he deny that those to whom they wished no severity to be shown should be admitted to communion?

II. In order to perceive the sentiment of the holy Father, it must be observed 1° that he very accurately preserves what had been decreed especially by the Synod of Alexandria, that neither side should brand the other with the mark of heresy or error. This seemed to Gregory most ridiculous or rather miserable, that what appeared to be a controversy about the faith was a light and empty altercation concerning the sound of words: that Sabellianism was being objected on account of the "three persons," and Arianism on account of the "three hypostases"; that the matter had finally been brought to such a point that there was ^C danger lest the ends of the earth be torn asunder along with these syllables. Nothing of the sort was committed by Basil, who in this very letter to Terentius calls his adversaries "domestics of the faith," and confesses that they moved toward a similarity of speaking with the Sabellians more by simplicity than by malice, and in many other places he bears witness to their faith, as in Epistle 156, no. 1, where he denies that those who differ are divided in opinion at Antioch. From this also, in Epistle 258, no. 3, he calls those who stood on the side of Paulinus "the brothers of Antioch," and prays that it might happen that he might see the Church of Antioch, which consents in doctrine, joined together at last, and that the true faith itself might no longer be severed against itself.

Basil was not, therefore, of that vehement sort of men of whom Jerome speaks thus in his letter to Pope Damasus: Let us ask, he says, what they think can be understood by "three hypostases." They say "three subsistent persons": we respond that we believe this. The meaning does not suffice, they demand the name itself: because I know not what venom lies hidden in the syllables. We cry out, if anyone does not confess three hypostases as three *enypostata*, that is three subsistent persons, let him be anathema. And because we do not learn these terms by heart, we are judged heretics. Such men indeed lacked that ^D excellent virtue which shone forth in all the words and deeds of Basil, namely gentleness and moderation of spirit. Yet Tillemont suspects (t. XII, p. 46) that Jerome is not consistent in these accounts. For when those vehement defenders of the three hypostases, says the learned writer, sought nothing else from Jerome but that he would confess three hypostases, how did he not appease them with the confession of three hypostases? Then indeed, after he recounted that he had confessed three hypostases, why does he immediately add, "And because we do not learn the terms by heart?" These things seem contradictory to Tillemont. But the most learned critic insufficiently noticed that Jerome in this place does not confess three hypostases, but wishes to be a middle ground between both parties. For he does not say, "If anyone does not confess three hypostases, let him be anathema": but this is the sense of his words: If anyone, in confessing three hypostases, confesses them not as three subsistent persons, but as three substances, let him be anathema. This is clear from what follows: "If anyone, however, understanding *ousia* as hypostasis, does not say one hypostasis in three persons, he is alien to Christ." Jerome therefore was not fighting with himself, but, embracing neither manner of speaking, he rejected whatever vice could inhere in either, and yet he could not appease those morose adversaries.

2° Nor is Basil to be blamed because he considered the controversy that had arisen concerning hypostases to be of great moment, nor does he here fight with the Synod of Alexandria. For although this question should not have been of such importance that peace should be broken among those Catholics who thought the same; still, it was of sufficiently great moment if one looks at the proclivity of the heretics to accuse the Church. For when they did not cease to paint Sabellianism upon the Catholics, a confession of "one hypostasis" after the example of Sabellius would have opened a field for their calumnies. Wherefore he assents to Epiphanius that it is necessary to confess three hypostases; not by any means that he thinks it necessary to be held so in order to be considered a Catholic, but so that no place be given to Arian calumnies, and I add also, so that the tradition received from our ancestors be preserved.

3° When Basil set himself with such ardor of soul to ensure that the defenders of one hypostasis not be joined to the Church of Meletius, and denies that he can be led to recognize Paulinus as a participant in the communion of the saints, one must diligently weigh what had been proposed to him. It was not a matter of putting an end to the Antiochene schism, and of the sheep returning to the legitimate shepherd, St. Meletius. If the hope of such a benefit had shone forth, I know for certain that Basil would have put everything after peace and charity, and would have gladly received the people and clergy of Paulinus, even if they admitted "one hypostasis." But the designs of the friends of Paulinus all looked to this, that Paulinus, excluding St. Meletius, might preside alone at Antioch. Hence Basil, in the same Epistle 214, no. 1, denies that he can be induced either to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church over which Meletius presides. Not undeservedly, therefore,

^A he refused to enter into communion with Paulinus; for indeed it could not be entered into without rejecting Meletius, who alone was the legitimate bishop of Antioch. For the same reason, Basil (epist. 258, no. 3) gently reproves Epiphanius for having entered into communion with the Church of Paulinus: not that he thought the defenders of a single hypostasis were to be excommunicated and cast out of the Church, but he required the constancy of Epiphanius, who, although he judged it necessary to confess three hypostases, had nonetheless communicated with men who professed one hypostasis, while spurning and rejecting the communion of Meletius. The same necessity of defending Meletius made it seem that the profession of a single hypostasis—which, if compensated by some great advantage, might have seemed light—was of very great moment when joined with the greatest injuries against Meletius. Nor would it have been greatly feared even from the calumnies of the Arians if one hypostasis, like some tolerable and forgivable birthmark, had found indulgence among the Catholics; but if it had attained the highest honor and celebrity, and the great Church of Meletius had been joined to the petty conventicle of Paulinus, as ^B if a river were joined to a rivulet, then the widest field for calumny would have been open to the Arians.

§ III. I. St. Basil has been vituperated by some because he did not always attribute the title of God to the Holy Spirit. II. He used this moderation in order to consult for the weak and to withdraw his Church from the fury of the heretics. III. Neither is absolutely to be vituperated. IV. The objections are solved. V. Basil, maintaining the same sentiment, does not always proceed in the same way in refuting heretics. (The explanation follows through the middle of the column, wherein the text notes that when the Church of Tarsus fell into the hands of the Arians, the Catholic presbyters refused to communicate with the heretical bishop and governed their people separately. Basil, being consulted, wrote two letters, one to the presbyters of Tarsus, and one to Cyriacus himself. He demonstrates that in that state of the Church, nothing is more urgent than to join dismembered parts. He says compliance and concession in matters where the soul is not harmed is necessary for the weak. He then continues:) Since therefore many mouths are open against the Holy Spirit, and tongues are sharpened to cast blasphemies against Him, we ask you that, as much as is in your power, you reduce the blasphemers to a small number; and that those who do not say the Holy Spirit is a creature, you receive into communion, so that the blasphemers may be left alone, and either, suffused with shame, return to the truth, or, if they remain in sin, may lack authority due to their small number. We demand nothing more than this: but let us propose the Nicene faith to those brothers willing to be joined with us: and, if they assent to it, let us also demand this, that it is not proper for the Holy Spirit to be called a creature, and that those who do say so are not to be received into communion by them. I judge that nothing further should be required. (Basil exhorts Cyriacus to profess the Nicene faith, not to reject any word in it, and to declare that the Holy Spirit must not be called a creature, nor should one communicate with those who say so. Basil did not approve of imposing this law on Cyriacus, that he must attribute the name of God to the Holy Spirit, but rather that he should confess the matter signified by this name ^D. What he wished to be observed for the healing and leading back of the weaker ones, he observed himself, so that the Church of Caesarea might escape the snares of wicked heretics. The matter is narrated thus by St. Gregory Nazianzen, or. 20, p. 364: "He deemed it wise to manage his words with discretion, using the divine David as his counselor in this matter, and deferring for a short time the season of war and the tyranny of the heretics, until the season of liberty should arrive, and he might speak with boldness. For some were seeking to escape the bare term concerning the Spirit, as if He were God (which, though true, was held by them to be impious, and by the wicked guide of their impiety), so that...")

^B they might drive us from the city along with our theological language, while they themselves seized the Church, and having made it a starting-point for their own wickedness, might from there, as if from some citadel, overrun all that remained. But he, with other expressions drawn from the Scriptures and from incontrovertible testimonies that have the same significance, and by the necessity of his syllogisms, so constrained those who spoke against him that they were unable to resist, but were bound by their own admissions—which is indeed the greatest power and wisdom of speech; and the work which he wrote on this subject will manifest this, moving his pen as if from the casket of the Spirit. For the time being, he deferred the primary term, asking both of the Spirit Himself and of His sincere champions that they should not be offended by this condescension, nor, by clinging to a single word, lose everything through greed, with piety being dragged along by the times. For to them, there would be no harm in slightly changing the terms and being taught the same thing through other words; for our salvation does not lie in syllables but in things; nor would even the Jewish nation have been rejected if, in seeking a little while for the term "Anointed" instead of "Christ," they had deigned themselves to be ranked with us; but to the common good, a very great injury would have occurred if the Church were seized.

Now, concerning the moderation shown toward the weak: 1° That moderation did nothing to harm the Catholic dogma, nor did it harm the habitual language used to express the dogma. The dogma was secure, both with the profession of the Nicene faith and with those things which Basil deemed necessary to be added to this formula. Moreover, all that accommodation had as its goal that as many as possible might be brought to confess in the Church the divinity of the Holy Spirit: for it was not reasonable (ep. 113) that, when the heretics willingly retained in their communion even those who did not think heretically, the Catholics should remove from their own those who thought as Catholics. Nor was anything taken away from the authority of Catholic speech. For even if it were conceded to the weak that they should not call the Holy Spirit God, it was not conceded that they should condemn this term, nor did other Catholics therefore cease to use and preach it. Wherefore there was hope that the weak, while they hear the Holy Spirit called God daily in the Church, and accustom their ears to this term, would shortly lay aside that empty scruple. And this hope especially sustained Basil. "For I am persuaded," he says (ep. 113), "that by longer association among us and mutual exercise without contention, if anything else needs to be added for the sake of explanation, the Lord will grant it, who works all things together for good to those who love Him." ^C 2° They do not observe, those to whom this manner of acting is not pleasing, that there is a great difference between those things which are yielded to heretics feebly and basely, and those things which are conceded to the weak by a certain kindly accommodation (5). This alone was what Modestus requested of Basil in the name of the emperor: that he would suffer one word, namely *consubstantial*, to be removed from the symbol of faith. But Basil replied that not even a single syllable of the sacred dogmas should be betrayed, that absolutely nothing should be added or taken away, and that not even the order of the formula itself should be changed. Yet he did not deny the grace of kind excuse to those who, while thinking as Catholics, had not yet received the Nicene formula, at least in the beginnings of his episcopate, as is clear from ep. 52. For it is one thing to remit some one word to the weak, another to yield to the arts or threats of heretics; as if that word were to be banished from the use of Catholic speech. If it had been conceded to the heretics that the term *consubstantial* should be erased, they would have celebrated a triumph.

^A And so, do not accuse us of a crime (for such an ascent ought not to be weighed down by envy or reproach), nor will we in turn object to you that term of which you are now capable, as long as you are conveyed by another path to the same lodging. For we do not seek victory, but we labor that brothers, by whose separation we are torn apart, may return to us. This is what Gregory argued at Constantinople; and the Council of Constantinople itself shortly after confirmed the moderation of his spirit by the authority of its own judgment, which called the Holy Spirit Lord, but, in order to consult those in whose souls a scruple was lodged—a scruple highly absurd, indeed, but nevertheless one to be pardoned—it did not deem that the name "God" should be inserted into the creed.

But perhaps this indulgence toward the infirm will seem to some a remiss manner of acting on Basil’s part with wicked heretics, when viewed less considerately. Yet if the one course is approved, the other cannot be disapproved. For when Basil blocked with this temperate approach the entry of the Arians into Cappadocia, at that time, if ever, he was exercising concern for the very many infirm whom persecution would have cast into the greatest danger. Furthermore, it was not unworthy of Basil’s charity not to propose to fuming heretics anything more than what he judged to be absolutely necessary for the Catholic dogma.

3. He had great scribes and imitators of his sentiment. Besides Athanasius, who approved and defended Basil’s action, as we shall see, Basil is imitated by Gregory Nazianzen in his 44th Oration (p. 710), where he speaks as follows: ^B "Let us be spiritually at one with each other; let us be lovers of our brothers rather than lovers of ourselves. Give us the power of the divinity, and we in turn will allow you the use of the term; confess the nature in other words, which you more revere, and we will care for you as for the infirm—there are some who have even stolen away things to suit your pleasure. For it is shameful, indeed shameful and sufficiently irrational, while being strong in soul, to be pedantic about a sound, and to hide the treasure, as if begrudging it to others, or fearing to sanctify even your tongue. But it is more shameful for us, who accuse others of this, to be pedantic ourselves about letters. Confess the Trinity to be of one divinity, O you men, or, if you prefer, of one nature; and we will seek from you the term 'God' for the Spirit. For He who gave the first will surely give the second, and especially so if it is a spiritual timidity that is the conflict, and not a diabolical contentiousness. Let me speak still more clearly and more briefly: neither do you find fault with us for a higher term (for there is no envy in climbing upwards), nor will we reproach you for that which is for the moment within your reach, until you are brought by another road to the same shelter; for we do not seek to conquer, but to take back brothers, by whose separation we are torn."

^C This, however, is to be observed above all: that Basil in no way committed himself to allowing the name "God" to cease being attributed to the Holy Spirit in the Church, but often attributed this title to Him, both himself and through another, Gregory Nazianzen. This is testified to by Gregory Nazianzen, who immediately adds to these things which we have just reported (p. 364): "For that he knew the Holy Spirit to be God better than anyone else is clear from the fact that he often proclaimed this publicly whenever there was an opportunity, and privately confessed it without hesitation to those who asked him; but he made it even clearer in his discourses to me—to whom he had no secrets concerning these matters, nor did he simply assert this, but, as happened very rarely to him, he called down upon himself the most fearful curse, to fall away from the Spirit Himself if he did not worship the Spirit with the Father and the Son as consubstantial and of equal honor. And if anyone should accept me as a partaker of his [views] even in such things, I will reveal something… ^D while he was constraining us, he entrusted to himself the economy, but to us the freedom of speech—we who were not going to be judged by anyone, nor cast out, having been honored by the concealment of our native land, so that from both [sides] the Gospel according to us might be strong. For that he knew the Holy Spirit to be God better than anyone else, as is clear from the fact that he often proclaimed this from a superior position, as far as time allowed, and confessed it without hesitation to those who questioned him privately: yet he demonstrated this more openly in his conversations with me (for he never, when he discussed these matters with me, had anything hidden or concealed in his mind), not simply affirming this, but, as had very rarely happened to him before, [he would call down...]

upon himself what is of all things the most dreaded, namely, that he should be cut off from the Spirit himself, unless he venerated the Spirit together with the Father and the Son as consubstantial and equal in honor. But if anyone in such great matters admits me as his associate, I shall make public something that was previously unknown to most. For when the time brought us into the greatest straits, he himself adopted this strategy: that he would keep the economy for himself, but would entrust to us, whom no one would bring to judgment or exile on account of the obscurity of our name, the freedom of speech. And thus our Gospel remained firm and valid, supported by the protection of both.

IV. Now, however, those points are easily refuted which hindered the learned author of the tract from approving Saint Basil’s course of action. Regarding his claim that Basil’s counsel did not succeed, either in restoring the infirm or in appeasing the Pneumatomachi, I confess that I do not know from what sources he drew this. For who told him that peace was not restored among the presbyters of Tarsus by Basil’s efforts? Who told him that the labors he undertook had no result, in that he brought all who held the catholic faith into one consensus and communion—especially when in Epistle 69, to Saint Athanasius, he shows his expectation of bringing this counsel to fruition; and in another letter written to the same Athanasius (Ep. 82) some time later, he declares that whatever is sound regarding the faith in Cappadocia and adjacent regions is truly inclined toward the communion and unity of those who hold the same views? ^B As regards the Pneumatomachi, they indeed waged an inexpiable war against Basil, but it is a certain and established fact that he warded off the gravest storms from Cappadocia, not only by sustaining great battles, but also by a prudent withdrawal, when he avoided the snares of the heretics in the year 371. For they were lying in ambush, intending to seize a single word from his mouth and use it to launch an attack upon the Church. Therefore Basil would not have struggled in so many and such great battles had not cautious and provident counsels preceded them; nor would so many miracles have shone forth, nor would Valens have held Cappadocia as the most distinguished among all the provinces, had not the usefulness of the churches moved Basil more than the complaints of sharper wits.

The formula, however, to which Eustathius subscribed, is the work not of Basil alone, but also of Theodotus and Meletius; and since it is not lacking in moderation and accommodation, and does not call the Holy Spirit God, who would believe that because of this Basil fell into offense with Theodotus and Meletius, because he did not sometimes attribute the name of God to the Holy Spirit? The injuries of Theodotus of Nicopolis against Basil were indeed great (Ep. 99); but the cause of his moroseness was Basil’s communion with Eustathius, not the omission of a single word. Basil feared for some time lest S. Meletius might deal with the matters concerning Eustathius with too little justice. But as soon as he had set out for Armenia and explained the rationale of his counsel to the holy exile, he experienced his extreme equity. And as for what he had done in defending the divinity of the Spirit, this never brought upon him the trouble of having to defend himself before any other bishop.

The author of the tract not only conjures up adversaries for Basil who never existed, but also tries to tear away from him those who were his defenders, S. Athanasius and S. Gregory Nazianzen—doubting of the one whether he ever approved of Basil’s action, and contending of the other that he did not always approve. Indeed, I do not see what is left for us to rely upon in critical matters if the patronage of S. Athanasius is stolen from Basil. Two of his letters are extant, which are very respectful toward Basil; one is to Palladius, the other to John and Antiochus. In both he defends Basil, who had been accused by the monks of Caesarea of having acted too remissly in the defense of the faith. Whereupon Athanasius says: If Basil were suspect in what pertains to the truth, then would their contention be laudable. He declares that he is rather struggling for the truth and teaching those who are in need of doctrine. He exhorts the monks that, looking to his love for the truth and his economy, they should glorify the Lord, etc. What is that economy which gave the monks matter for accusing Basil? What dogma was he seen to defend too remissly? You will certainly find none other than the question regarding the Holy Spirit. To this is added the testimony of Gregory Nazianzen, from whose Letter 27 we learn that Basil, because he had not called the Holy Spirit God on the feast of S. Eupsychius, had brought the complaints of the monks upon himself. The facts and the persons therefore agree. The time also agrees. For Basil used this economy, and fell into these accusations, before Saint Athanasius had departed from life, namely, in the year 371.

The claim ^D of the same writer rests on no safer foundation when he says that secret heretics, such as Eustathius was, used this accommodation and leniency of Basil to join themselves to him, and afterward vexed him with the gravest calumnies. Basil had long since lived with Eustathius in the closest and most affectionate manner before this controversy concerning the Spirit arose. Not long after this controversy erupted, their friendship collapsed, for the reason that Basil, although he was not morose in approving and putting to the test the faith of suspected men, was nevertheless cautious in binding Eustathius with firmest knots; and when the latter could not escape these bonds, he openly and plainly vomited forth hatred and anger against Basil. Basil’s leniency, therefore, in defending the divinity of the Spirit, in no way joined Eustathius to him, but rather estranged him by the firmness of his stance in that dogma.

As for S. Gregory Nazianzen, I do not think any time can be assigned at which he ceased to approve of the action of his friend. For he praised this moderation of his spirit, both while he lived and after his death, and he did not merely praise it, but also imitated it. Where Basil was first accused at a certain banquet, Gregory’s indignation burned against his detractor.

^A When Gregory came to Constantinople 6, so that he might revive the catholic faith which had been almost extinguished there, he showed himself to be not only sharp and tireless in refuting heretics, but also gentle and moderate in healing the weak by the example of Basil, as the testimony of the latter, which we have drawn from his 44th oration, declares. Having returned from Constantinople, he gave an oration in praise of Basil, in which, among other things, he recounts that prudent accommodation of his in a most troublesome time.

The moderation employed by Basil is even less approved on the grounds that he supposedly renounced his own counsel and did not commit anything similar in defending the consubstantial. Both are refuted of their own accord. There is no trace of inconstancy in this matter, neither in the works of Basil, nor in those of Gregory Nazianzen, who would not have spent so much effort in defending his friend if he had believed that he himself had repented of his own deed. As we said above, Basil even conceded the consubstantial itself to weaker minds.

V. And that his entire mode of acting in matters of this kind may be perceived, it will not be irrelevant to explain briefly what he required of returning heretics or of suspected individuals, according to the variety of times. From infancy to his final breath, Basil was most tenacious of sound doctrine: never was an entrance opened in his heart to any discourse alien to sound doctrine; no change of opinion could be attributed to him; but yet, he himself confesses that the seeds of doctrine received from a tender age grew by use (ep. 204, n. 6, p. 306; ep. 223, n. 3, p. 338). However, among those things which accrued to him by use and practice can be counted a certain prudence in distinguishing the cavils of heretics, which, since they were wont to change from hour to hour, could not be guarded against in one and the same way. In that perturbation of affairs which the Arians brought about in the year 360 with their wrangling over "similar" and "dissimilar," neither "similar" nor "dissimilar" pleased Basil, but he professed the identity of nature and the consubstantial (ep. 8, p. 82). Later, when affairs were changed, and when there were already not such great dangers from the perfidy of the Arians, Basil accepted "similar according to essence," provided that "without any difference" was added to it; otherwise, he considered this word suspect (ep. 9, n. 3). And indeed, Basil did not establish these things for his own sake (for he himself professed the consubstantial), but if any were suspect, he thought it sufficient for purifying their faith that they add to "similar according to essence" the phrase "without any difference" (ibid.). From which it can also be perceived that Basil imposed on no one the necessity of professing the consubstantial. And this should not seem surprising. For when he was writing the ninth letter, from which we have taken these things, he was joined in communion and friendship with Silvanus of Tarsus and many other bishops, who, although they defended the Nicene faith most fiercely ^B, had not, however, openly and publicly received the word "consubstantial." It is known to all with what gentleness Athanasius and Hilary deemed that one should deal with such men.

Those who sought from Basil a confession of faith drawn from the Scriptures (tom. II, p. 223), that is, a written confession, seem not to have received the consubstantial yet. Whence Basil, providing for their weakness, promises that he will not use names and words which indeed are not found in divine Scripture by their very letters and syllables, but yet which preserve the meaning inherent in Scripture. In the confession of faith which he sent to them, he did not employ the consubstantial (p. 224): which indeed Basil, fearing lest he be accused, declares was not his intention, just as in other works; for it is one thing to refute heretics, another to simply set forth sound faith (p. 225).

There were not wanting, at the beginning of Basil's episcopate, those who had not yet received the consubstantial. Basil judges these men to be in part worthy of censure, in part worthy of pardon (ep. 52, n. 1, p. 145). But such men seem to have been very few. For after the Council of Tyana, most gave their hands to the consubstantial, except for thirty-four Asian bishops, whom it is not at all surprising resisted by common counsel 7. For this region was so emancipated to error that Basil thinks thanks should be given to God if there are any at all in the Asian territory who are without the corruption of heretics. ^C And so it happened gradually that of those who held catholic opinions, hardly anyone did not admit the consubstantial (ep. 331). But after the heresy of the Pneumatomachians began to spread, then indeed not only was nothing more detracted from the Nicene faith, but also something seemed to need to be added to this formula: Basil urges Cyriacus, a presbyter of Tarsus (ep. 114, p. 207), to receive the Nicene faith and not to reject any word in it; rather, to add to this faith that the Holy Spirit ought not to be called a creature, nor that there should be communication with those who say so. Not much later, Basil, having deliberated the matter with the saintly Meletius and Theodotus, prescribed that also to Eustathius (ep. 125, p. 216), namely, that he should glorify the Holy Spirit just as the Father and the Son; and he proposed that this glorification be thereafter added to the Nicene Synod as a thing necessary, as can be perceived from letters 175 and 258, n. 2. Nothing inflamed the Pneumatomachians more than this glorification of the Spirit with the Father and the Son. But Basil declares (De Spir. S. c. 29, p. 63) that he will abandon the glorification practiced by constant tradition for fear of neither sword nor fire. This much only does he concede to them (ib. c. 25, p. 54), that ^D although the preposition is more suitable for rendering the glorification, if they prefer to use the conjunction, etc., as in baptism, this be allowed to them, with no one objecting.

§ IV. PREFACE.

I. There exists at the beginning of the Third Book ^A *Against Eunomius* a remarkable passage which, since it contains a clear testimony concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Son, provided it is read without obliterations or additions, has given matter for a most grave controversy between the Greeks and the Latins. This bulwark of Catholic truth is defended by the Rev. Fr. Louis Vallée, emeritus professor of theology and prefect of the Library of Sainte-Geneviève, in a learned dissertation published in Paris in the year 1721 by Delaunay, on Rue Saint-Jacques. Those who wish to investigate the matter through all its traces could do nothing better or more excellent than to read that outstanding work with care; for it is so crowded and illustrated with every kind of argument that it leaves no room for doubt or for the addition of anything further, and, since it can conveniently be bound with our volumes of St. Basil, I should gladly have remained silent. But because the very famous passage of Basil has appeared in this new edition just as it was read in the manuscripts existing in this city—not as the authority of other, far more numerous and far more ancient manuscripts, and the series and connection of the thought itself, demanded—it is worth the effort to remedy this inconvenience and, for the sake of those who do not have the leisure to go to the source itself, to deduce some things from the aforementioned dissertation.

To make it easier to discern what the Greeks and what the Latins approve or reject in the testimony of Basil, we shall enclose in brackets what the Latins complain were added by the Greeks, and with asterisks we shall mark what the Greeks reject when it is championed by the Latins.

At the beginning of the Third Book, Basil puts forward this blasphemy of Eunomius, who speaks thus: "But since these things concerning the Only-Begotten are sufficient for us, it follows that we should now also speak of the Paraclete, not following the rash opinions of the masses, but maintaining the doctrine of the saints in all things; for when we have learned from them that He is third in dignity and order, we also believe Him to be third in nature."

Basilius responds: "Because, therefore, he does not think it right to remain in the simple and raw faith of the many, but by certain artificial and captious arguments drags the truth back to what seems right to him, he shows it sufficiently from those things he has said. For once he has despised the opinion of the masses by which they glorify the Holy Spirit, he pretends to hold the doctrine of the saints; but he is silent about those who handed it down to him, even now doing the same thing that he was convicted of having done while he was discoursing about the Only-Begotten. Next, he says that he had indeed learned from the saints that the Spirit is third in order and dignity, but that he believes by his own authority that He is also third in nature. But who those saints are, and in what writings they might have handed down this doctrine, he cannot say. Was there ever a man so bold in introducing innovations of dogmas? ^B For why is it necessary, if the Spirit is third in dignity and order, that He also be third in nature? Even if piety's discourse hands down that He is second in dignity to the Son, *as one who has his being from Him, and receives from Him, and announces to us, and entirely depends on that cause* [perhaps], yet that He is third in nature, we have neither been taught by the holy Scriptures, nor can it be inferred by any consequence from the sayings of Scripture. For as the Son is indeed second in order from the Father, because He is from Him, and in dignity, because He is His origin and cause, insofar as He is His Father, and because through Him is the access and approach to God and the Father; but not second in nature, because the divinity is one in both: so, indeed, the Holy Spirit, even if He is second from the Son both in order and in dignity [that we may even concede this entirely], yet it does not rightly follow that He is of a different nature, it is manifest from there, etc.

Then Basil, by an argument taken from the angels, whose orders and degrees of dignity are diverse, and yet whose nature is not diverse, concludes thus: ^C "So indeed the Holy Spirit—even if He is inferior in dignity and in order [as they say]; for we have received Him, [he says], numbered third from the Father and the Son; since the Lord Himself in the tradition of the saving baptism handed down the order in these words: 'Go, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit';—but that He was cast into some third nature from the Son and the Father, we have nowhere learned."

It is not difficult to observe that it is exceedingly annoying to the Greeks that the Holy Spirit is said to have His being from the Son; on the other hand, those things are most pleasing to them, whatever is enclosed in brackets, which tend toward making Basil seem not to pronounce with assertion, but to concede as if hesitating that the Spirit is inferior to the Son in order and dignity. For they see that if Basil were to assert this, it would follow from it that he believed the Spirit proceeds from the Son. But this text, which the Greeks have defended by hook or by crook, is far to be postponed to the other, whether one considers certain interior indications, such as the consensus with the doctrine of Basil and the other Fathers and the series and continuation of the thought itself, or whether one judges the matter from the number and authority of the ancient manuscripts. We shall briefly explain both arguments for those who wish to perceive a richer knowledge of this question, having dismissed them to the aforementioned dissertation.

II. ^D Indeed, this is a great vice in the reading of the Greeks, that they introduce Basil as shamefully doubting regarding a matter attested to in all things and often confirmed by Basil himself. For what is more absurd than to assert that the Son is second to the Father in order and dignity, but not to dare to say that the Spirit is inferior to the Son in order and dignity? This, in faith, did not fall into Basil, who in the book *On the Holy Spirit*, chap. 17, teaches in explicit words that the same order intervenes between the Spirit and the Son as between the Son and the Father: "As the Son," he says, "is related to the Father, so the Spirit is related to the Son according to the order of the word of God handed down in baptism." Therefore, he creates a ridiculous fear for Basil.

^A Before I come to the reading defended by the Latins, it is pleasing to note another addition in these words: Τίνες δὲ οἱ ἅγιοι καὶ ἐν ποίοις λόγοις τὴν διδασκαλίαν πεποίηνται, εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἔχει. "But who those saints might be, and in what writings they might have set forth this teaching, he cannot say." These words, *εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἔχει*—"he cannot say"—which were unearthed from four royal manuscripts but are missing from three others and from the ancient editions, bear a manifest indication of perfidy and corruption. For who would believe Basil to have been such a stranger and foreigner to ecclesiastical tradition that, while he himself pronounces the Son to be lesser in order and dignity, he would say that the teachers of that doctrine, which teaches the same regarding the Spirit, could not be cited by Eunomius? Whether those words which are read below, *Cum Dominus ipse in traditione salutaris baptismatis tradiderit ordinem*, etc., belong to Basil, Basil recognizes the Lord himself as the author of this doctrine, much less would he think that no authors could be produced. Or if these words are to be attributed to Eunomius, he does not labor under a lack of authors for his doctrine, as he cites the Lord himself as the author. These words, therefore, have crept into this new edition erroneously; yet they are not without value in demonstrating the audacity of the Greeks in adulterating this passage of Basil.

For I cannot agree with the learned author of the dissertation, who thinks that Basil, in saying "He feigns to preserve the doctrine of the saints, but is silent about those who handed it to him," is looking toward Eunomius's impious opinion about a third substance. For Basil accurately distinguishes those things which Eunomius claimed to have learned from the saints—namely, that the Spirit is third in order and dignity—from those things which he confessed he believed on his own authority, namely, that He is also third in nature. Therefore, what Basil adds, "But who are those saints, and in what writings have they set forth this teaching?" would be entirely undeservedly referred to those things which Eunomius said he believed on his own authority, and not that he had received them from the saints. Wherefore, when Basil interrogates him thus: "Who then are those saints, and in what writings have they set forth this teaching?" he declares not obscurely that Eunomius has cunningly suppressed the testimonies of the saints and especially the words of Christ, from which it is gathered that the Holy Spirit is third in order; because, since these words evidently assert the divinity of the Holy Spirit, if Eunomius had reported them, the impiety of the things which he immediately added on his own would have been more manifest.

^D III. The scripture which the Latins defend not only coheres fittingly and conveniently with the whole of Basil's doctrine, but also necessarily with his reasoning and his arguments. That the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son could be demonstrated even by this one testimony alone, which we have toward the end of Book II *Against Eunomius*. For when Eunomius impiously called the Son a creature of the Father, and the Spirit a creature of the Son, Basil shrinks from his impiety, because he called the Holy Spirit a creature; and then he argues against him thus,

that the Spirit attributes His origin not to the Father and the Son, but to the Son alone. But that, he says (p. 270), to whom is it not patently clear, that no operation of the Son is divided from the Father, nor is there anything in the nature of things which pertains to the Son and is alien to the Father? "For all my things," he says, "are thine, and thine are mine." How therefore does he attribute the cause of the Spirit to the Only-Begotten alone, and usurp His creation to accuse his nature? It is clearer than light that Basil and Eunomius agreed that the origin of the Spirit should be attributed to the Son, but that the controversy existed in this, that Eunomius attributed it to the Son alone, while Basil attributed it to the Father and the Son. Basil does not prove his opinion in a perfunctory manner. He contends that there would be two principles if the origin of the Spirit were attributed to the Son alone. He demonstrates that He should not be separated ^B from the Father, since the Apostle also jointly calls Him the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God the Father; and the Lord calls Him the Spirit of truth (for Christ Himself is the truth) and says of Him: He proceeds from the Father, as demonstrated by these words from cap. 17 of the book *On the Holy Spirit* already cited: As the Son has toward the Father, so the Spirit has toward the Son, etc. And this relation is explained more fully in cap. 18 of the same book.

To these, some things can be added from the fifth book *Against Eunomius*, which book, although it may not be Basil's, is nevertheless adjudged to him by the Greeks, and is entirely composed of his opinions. There (p. 305) we read that the Spirit is the Word of the Son, the image of the Son, the Spirit of the Son, proceeding from God through the Son. Nor should that question be omitted (ibid.), Why is the Spirit not also called the Son of the Son? Which question was indeed most absurd, if the Spirit does not proceed from the Son.

But if Basil ever taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, the time was most necessary for deriving this doctrine when he pronounced Him to be lesser than the Son in order and dignity, in the controversy undertaken against the subtle heretics. For he who, dealing only incidentally with the Son, did not dare to say He was lesser in order and dignity than the Father, unless he immediately added the cause, because He is from the Father and the Father is His origin, how much more was this caution to be applied by him when he was speaking specifically of the Holy Spirit, whom he was calling lesser than the Son in order and dignity? Furthermore, Basil’s reasoning will be defective or rather absurd, unless he at least thought and believed that the Spirit is lesser than the Son in order and dignity because He has His being from the Son. For all this reasoning would return to this: Just as the Son, who has His being from the Father, is lesser in order and dignity than the Father, but not in nature; so the Spirit, who has His being from the Son, is ^C lesser in order and dignity than the Son, but not in nature. What can be imagined more absurd than this? It is necessary, therefore, that the cause why the Spirit is third in order and dignity, if not expressed by Basil in words, was at least present in his mind. But as I have already said, the perfidy of Eunomius, who snatched at this principle for the most alien meanings and concluded that the Spirit was third by nature, imposed the necessity of expressing this cause in clear words. Hence Basil, in the book *On the Holy Spirit*, cap. 6, denies that the Son is inferior in dignity, and contends that He is essentially equal.

Nor is Basil’s opinion obscured by those words in ep. 52, n. 2: For those things which have a relationship of brotherhood among themselves are not called consubstantial, which some think, but when there is a cause and that which has its existence from a cause, they are of the same nature, they are called consubstantial. The conclusion which theologians draw from these words is manifest and open. For if only those things should be called consubstantial, of which one has its origin from the other, the Spirit could not be called consubstantial to the Son in so many places in Basil, unless it were clear that He has His origin from the Son. Indeed, I have interpreted this testimony slightly differently than Petavius; but nothing is lost from the weight of the argument. For in the interpretation which I shall provide below, Basil denies that only those things should be called consubstantial which are held by fraternal kinship, as some used to think; but he contends that this word is fittingly used also when a cause and that which has existence from a cause are of the same nature. From which it is evident that Basil and his adversaries agreed that the Son has His existence from the Father, and the Spirit has His existence from the Father and the Son, and that they are of the same nature; but they, although they were Catholics, did not wish to call the Son consubstantial to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Father and the Son, because that word seemed less ^D fitting to them when a cause and that which has existence from a cause are of the same nature.

In the same epistle, Basil contends that the order of the persons is holy and inviolable, which we learned in the Gospel from the Lord saying: "Go, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." He teaches the same in ep. 125, n. 3. What that order of persons is, we perceive from book 1 *Against Eunomius*, where he speaks thus: But we, he says (p. 232), say that the Father is placed before the Son according to the relation of causes to those things which are from them. The same is to be said concerning the Holy Spirit.

IV. To so many and such great arguments of reason, which would be valid even without manuscripts, is added the authority of manuscripts, not indeed of those which now exist in our libraries, but of those which we know from the most certain monuments once to have existed. Hugo Etherianus, a writer of the twelfth century, who dedicated three books to the defense of the Latins to Alexander III in the year 1177, cites in the second book, cap. 19, that saying of Basil concerning the Spirit, that He has His being from the Son. In the third book, cap. 12, he reports the sense more than the words. But in cap. 13 of the same book, he reports the passage in its entirety without additions attributing doubts to Basil, and not without that distinguished sentence which declares that the Spirit has His being from the Son.

^A Indeed, Etherianus praises these as being completely free from doubt and controversy. Nor did Nicetas of Maroneia, who opposed Etherianus in the same century, attempt to cast any suspicion of forgery upon this testimony, as we learn both from Bessarion, who testifies that he saw this testimony in the book of Nicetas (8), and especially from Leo Allatius, who asserts that this testimony was accepted by Nicetas as authentic (9). Furthermore, the spurious additions were not present in the codices which Euthymius Zigabenus used in the twelfth century. For in his *Panoplia* he testifies that Basil did not doubt whether the Holy Spirit was posterior to the Son in order and dignity.

In the thirteenth century, however, some codices began to appear in which the testimony inconvenient to the Greeks was missing, though the additions that favored them were not. But I would like those who wish to know how Beccus and his two companions and archdeacons, Constantine Meliteniotes and George Metochita, demonstrated that these codices were both recent and very few, and that they were refuted by others found everywhere in the world that were far more ancient, to study the aforementioned dissertation. The same cause was vigorously defended in the fourteenth century by two other very learned writers among the Greeks, Demetrius Cydonius and Manuel Calecas. At the Council of Florence, when six codices were produced, only one, a paper manuscript, favored the Greeks, while five favored the Latins; ^B four of these codices were written on parchment. Moreover, when Mark of Ephesus had repeatedly claimed that he knew of more than a thousand books in Constantinople containing the reading of the Greeks, Bessarion detected his lie with his own eyes and hands. Upon returning to Constantinople, as he himself testifies in an epistle to Alexius Lascaris, he inspected all the libraries and did not find the reading inconvenient to the Greeks in any recent codex written after the dissension; rather, he found it in others, which were not a few and which were by far more ancient. It is, above all, memorable what he relates regarding two codices found by him in the Monastery of Christ the Saviour Pantepoptes: in one, which was very ancient and on parchment, the truth had been violated, with a blank space still testifying to the crime; in the other, which was on paper and written three hundred years earlier, the whole part that teaches that the Spirit depends from the Son as from a cause, had been smeared with ink. Even if such codices no longer existed in the libraries of the Greeks, yet nothing would be lost from their authority; for they are recorded by the most certain monuments and testimonies of history, which can be destroyed by no crime and hidden by no theft. Nor can it be ambiguous which codices are to be considered superior, the ancient or the recent: those written before the controversy regarding the Holy Spirit arose, before it mattered to the Greeks what they might attempt to alter in the context of Basil, or those which the same Greeks later brought forward in the very heat of contention, when they would dare anything for the defense of their cause. Therefore, it seems that the diligence of those who presided over the publication of the works of St. Basil is to be questioned, because no edition—if you except the Latin interpretation of Trapezuntius—restored the distinguished testimony concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit to its ancestral seat, or erased the blemishes deliberately injected into it.

§ V.

I. We have already observed that a significant argument for the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is found in epistle 52 of St. Basil to the canonesses. But because that same passage causes difficulty for the most learned theologians, some effort must be expended in explaining it. For he seems to consider as consubstantial only those things, one of which took its origin from the other. He speaks thus on page 145, n. 2: Οὐ γὰρ τὰ ἀδελφὰ ἀλλήλοις ὁμοούσια λέγεται, ὅπερ τινὲς ὑπειλήφασιν· ἀλλ' ὅταν καὶ τὸ αἴτιον καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ αἰτίου τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον, τῆς αὐτῆς ὑπάρχῃ φύσεως, ὁμοούσια λέγεται: *For things that have the relationship of brothers to one another are not called consubstantial, as some have supposed; but when both the cause and that which has its existence from the cause are of the same nature, they are called consubstantial.* Petavius (10), along with Calecas, Bessarion, and Demetrius Cydonius, explains Basil's words in such a way as to think that he calls those things properly consubstantial which are joined by a relationship of origin; but others less properly, such as Peter and Paul. But if the words of the holy Father are weighed more accurately, he does not seem in this place to deny that which he asserts in distinct words in epistle 38, that men are consubstantial with one another; rather, he refutes only those who attributed the notion of "consubstantial" to things joined to one another by fraternal relationship so properly that it could not be adapted to divine things.

1°. This notion, as it was expounded by the adversaries, has some place in bronze and coins cast from bronze. For there is a certain prior substance which is divided into many. 2°. It must be examined who are refuted by these words: *For things that have the relationship of brothers to one another are not called consubstantial, as some have supposed.* He certainly does not refute those who said that Peter and Paul were consubstantial by reason of similarity of nature, and who concluded from this that the Father and the Son, being light and light, are consubstantial. He opposes only those who rejected the term "consubstantial." But what does he reproach in them? Surely nothing other than that they attributed "consubstantial" only to those things which have a fraternal relationship. [alt-version omitted]

that connection. For they seized upon this cause, to exclude from the divine persons not only fraternal kinship, but also the consubstantial. Wherefore there was no reason why Basil should rush into the opposite error, and say that what his adversaries denied could exist without fraternal kinship, could not be reconciled with it. It was enough to show that those things are not called consubstantial only which have a fraternal kinship; but when the cause and that which has its existence from the cause are of the same nature, then they are rightly called consubstantial. 3° We must not lightly pass over these words, “that which some suppose.” For from these it is evident that it is not the common opinion of Basil—which he professes elsewhere, as we have just observed—that is being refuted, but the singular fiction of certain men who thought the notion of substance was conveyed by the word *consubstantial*, and understood that of those things which come from a substance, so that a divided substance ^A might harmonize the designation of *consubstantial* to the things into which it is divided.

II. Those who supposed that Basil, in explaining the work of the six days, taught that the world was created by God in a moment of time with its adornment, have understood his mind less well. He certainly adheres most accurately to all the footsteps of Moses. He asks, in Homily 2, n. 1, p. 22, why the earth is called "unformed," while the same is not said of the heaven. He concludes that the earth is called unformed because it had not yet brought forth plants, trees, and flowers. But he contends that the heaven itself was also unformed. These same things, he says, we would also say of the heaven, that it was not yet perfected, nor had it received its proper adornment; inasmuch as it did not yet shine with the sun and moon, nor was it crowned with the choirs of the stars. For these things were not yet founded. Wherefore you would not err from the truth if you were to call the heaven unformed. He called the earth invisible for two reasons: either because man, its spectator, did not yet exist; or because, being submerged by the waters floating ^B upon its surface, it could not be seen. For the waters were not yet gathered into their own channels, which, having been gathered later, God called seas.

These things, surely, do not at all savor of that subtle opinion which holds that the world with its adornment came forth in a point of time. The same is seen from n. 3 of the same homily, p. 15, and from Hom. 5, n. 5, p. 44. In Hom. 4, n. 4, he encounters this question: "If water was upon the earth, all the hollows that now contain the sea were filled. Where, therefore, were the waters to be gathered, since the hollows were already occupied?" Thus he answers: "To these we shall reply that the receptacles were also being prepared at the time when it was necessary for the water to be separated into one gathering." For that sea which is outside the Gades was not yet, etc.

It will not be tedious to add what Basil observes most acutely concerning the creation of the sun. Thus he speaks in Hom. 4, n. 5, p. 57: "Lest we attribute to the sun the cause of drying the earth, the Creator made the dryness of the earth older than the generation of the sun ^C lest we ascribe to the sun the cause of drying the earth." And in Hom. 6, n. 2, p. 51: "Heaven and earth had preceded, after these light had been created, day and night had been distinguished; likewise the firmament, and the uncovering of the dry land. The earth was filled with its own seedlings, since it had already brought forth innumerable kinds of herbs, and abounded in plant species of every kind. Yet there was not yet a sun, nor a moon: lest they should call the sun the author and father of light, and lest they should think the creator of things nascent from the earth to be one who ignores God."

But now it is very easy to explain in what sense Basil said the world was produced in a moment of time. The testimony that is objected stands in Hom. 1, n. 6, where he speaks thus: “Or perhaps the words 'In the beginning He created' [Gen. 1, 1] are said because of the instantaneous and timeless nature of the creation, since the beginning is something partless and undivided. For just as the beginning of a road is not yet the road, and the beginning of a house is not a house; so also the beginning of time is not yet time, ^D nor even its smallest part... In order, therefore, that we might be taught that the world subsisted together with the will of God without time, the words are said, 'In the beginning He created,' which other interpreters, giving the meaning more clearly, have said: 'In summary God created,' that is, all at once and in a short time." Perhaps because of the creation made in a moment and without time it was said, *In the beginning He created*: since a beginning is devoid of parts and division. For just as the beginning of a way is not yet a way, and the beginning of a house is by no means a house: so also the beginning of time is not yet time, nay, not even its smallest part... Therefore, that we may be taught that the world by the will of God subsisted simultaneously without any delay of time, it is said: *In the beginning He created*. Which other interpreters, rendering the sentiment more clearly, have said: *In summary God created*, that is, suddenly and briefly. But from these words nothing else can be gathered except what all Christians have always held, that all things were brought forth from nothing in a moment of time, and that nothing resisted the will of God. Hence Basil teaches the same concerning the things that emerged one by one for the adornment of the world. For thus he speaks of the sprouts of the earth in Hom. 5, n. 5, p. 44: Even in a minimum point of time, the earth, beginning from its germination, so that it might observe the Creator's laws, advancing through every species of growth, brought its sprouts at once to perfection.

§ VI. I. The authority of tradition defended by St. Basil against Eunomius and the Pneumatomachi. II. He was also exceedingly studious in defending Catholic language, and what he feels about councils. III. Why he calls his adversaries to Scripture. IV. In what sense he said all things must be confirmed by the Scriptures, and nothing added to the Scriptures. V. In what sense auditors ought to prove what is said by teachers. I. It is not in the interest of those who [separate] sects from the Church

^A to defend their positions by means of these arguments, which concern the authority of the Church and the tradition committed to it, by making a display of themselves. For when they entrust everything to the outcome of a single battle, and once defeated in this matter, nothing remains for the defense of their cause; then they are more easily overcome in this dogma than in others, because they do not cause trouble through the novelty of their error, but follow in the footsteps of all the heretics who have ever existed. Scultetus, however, has dared [(10)] to challenge Basil, the most staunch defender of tradition, and he is not timid or modest in collecting testimonies regarding him. But so that the rashness of Scultetus may be manifest to all, the opinion of the holy doctor must be set forth in a few words: although he defended the tradition of the Church not more by learned writings than by deeds performed with fortitude. His work in explaining the Scriptures was by no means sluggish or diligent, but he also proved himself to be a most fierce defender of tradition. For he knew well that the word of God had been delivered to the Church by the apostles not only in writing, but also by word of mouth; and that what the Church has constantly taught in all ages was received from nowhere else but from the apostles, nor can it be separated from what the apostles wrote, unless one pretend they taught one thing in writing and another by word of mouth. He left a brilliant testimony of this opinion in the first book against Eunomius, who, when he sought the same license in divinely revealed doctrine as in philosophical matters, and mocked the Catholics—as if they were distinguishing truth from falsehood by a multitude, attributing the palm to the majority, and granting victory to the army of the ancients, while they stopped their ears to the later ones—is thus refuted by the holy doctor (p. 210): "What do you say? Shall we give the palm to the ancients? Shall we not revere the multitude of Christians, neither of those who are now, nor of those who have existed since the Gospel was preached? Shall we not consider the dignity of those who shone with spiritual gifts of every kind? Against all of whom you have recently devised this hostile and contrary way of impiety; but with the eyes of the soul utterly closed, and the memory of any holy man dispelled from the mind, shall we each surrender our heart, idle and purged of your captious arguments and sophistries?" ^C It is impossible to doubt whether the recent sects have imitated Basil or Eunomius: whether with Basil they have revered the authority of the holy Fathers and the multitude of all Christians, both those who now are and those who have existed since the birth of the Church; or whether with Eunomius they have assailed such great authority with quibbles and cavils.

Those things which follow seem to be of no less importance. "Truly," he says (ibid., p. 211), "great would be your power, if you could succeed in accomplishing by your own authority that which the devil has not been able to attain by his manifold artifice; if, namely, by your persuasion and prompting, one could set aside the tradition which has prevailed among so many saints throughout all past time, in favor of your impious fiction." We perceive from these that all the devil's artifices in stirring up heresies have aimed at this: to utterly tear up the apostolic preaching which the Church guards as a sacred deposit; but that his efforts have been in vain. Therefore, those who have attacked tradition, which has been preached among so many saints throughout all past time, did not have the Holy Spirit as their guide in interpreting the Scriptures, but were emissaries of the devil for the overturning of the Church. Hence Basil repeats the origin of heresies from the contempt of the holy Fathers in his commentary on Isaiah. "There are some," he says (p. 555), "who, when they disdain the Fathers and the dogmas handed down by them, desire to be the authors of heresies themselves."

If any dogmas could indeed be defended without tradition on account of the most manifest testimonies of Scripture, that especially ought to be established regarding the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit. Yet in no other dogma has tradition been more fiercely defended. Basil declares in many places how necessary this safeguard is for the Church. "But in order that you may not separate," he says in homily 24 (p. 194), "the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, let tradition deter you. Thus the Lord taught, the apostles preached, the Fathers preserved, the martyrs confirmed."

But especially in the book *On the Holy Spirit* he pours out all the powers of his genius in defending the tradition of catholic dogma. "That which is attacked is the faith," he says (ch. 10, p. 21), "and this is the goal common to all adversaries and enemies of sound doctrine, that they may shake the solidity of faith in Christ by abolishing the apostolic tradition, which is equated with the soil." ^D Therefore, just as those who are under obligation to the good faith demand proofs from Scripture with clamor, rejecting the testimony of the Fathers that is not written as being of no importance. And ch. 27 (p. 54): "Of the dogmas and preachings observed in the Church, some we have from doctrine set forth in writing, others we have received in mystery from the tradition of the apostles: both of which have the same force for piety; and no one will contradict these—certainly no one who has even a slight acquaintance with the institutions of the Church. For if we attempt to reject customs that are not set forth in writing, as having little importance, we will unwittingly harm the Gospel in the most critical matters, or rather, we will shrink the preaching to a bare name." Why one must have recourse to tradition in order to perceive the doctrine of the Church, he brings this reason also (p. 55), that not only were all things not consigned to the Scriptures, but the Scripture itself is involved in a certain obscurity. "Moreover, there is also a species of silence in obscurity, which Scripture uses, rendering the meaning of dogmas difficult to understand, and this for the benefit of the readers" (p. 206). Scultetus hoped that these could be eluded if this part of the book *On the Holy Spirit*, from which we have lastly [alt-version omitted]

^A extracted the testimony, were answered not as being the offspring of Basil, but as the work of some foreign hand; or at least that Basil in this place was not discussing the chief articles of faith, but ritual traditions, some of which are of no account, and others of which have long since been obliterated from human memory within the Roman Church itself.

That first invention, by which perfidious hands attempt to cast suspicions upon the book *On the Holy Spirit*, has now been so thoroughly exploded by all that it needs no new labor to refute it. As for the second response of Scultetus, it is indeed true that Basil in this place recounts some things that do not pertain to the essence of the sacraments: but his principle is nonetheless proven—namely, that both things, those delivered in the Scriptures and those received from the tradition of the apostles, have the same force for piety. For even those things that do not pertain to the essence of the sacraments have equal weight, whether they are contained in the Scriptures or in the tradition of the apostles; for they could be changed just as well as the rite of immersion in water, which is mentioned in the Scriptures and signified by the very word "baptism," yet because it does not pertain to the essence of baptism, it has been changed by the Church. In vain, therefore, does Scultetus harass St. Basil, as if in this passage of Basil, the rule were in conflict with the examples, and the examples with the rule. For Basil does not say that the Gospel is damaged in its chief parts and the preaching reduced to a mere name if some rites are changed by the Church: but he teaches that this most grave inconvenience follows from contempt of ^C tradition, namely, that nothing remains intact in the worship and doctrine of the Church, but that the very consecration of the Eucharist, the sacrament of confirmation, and even the profession of faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are overturned (p. 57). The truth of this opinion is demonstrated by the example of recent sects, which, having once rejected tradition, destroyed not only the pious rites of the Church, but also the consecration of the Eucharist, such as it is described by Basil, and the sacrament of confirmation, and reduced the preaching of the Gospel to such a bare name that the whole of religion is left to the judgment and whim of each individual, and not even the doctrine of the Trinity can be protected against the Unitarians.

II. Basil is also a wealthy witness to the fervor of spirit with which the language used in the Church to express dogma ought to be defended. For, since the Pneumatomachi could not suffer the Holy Spirit to be glorified together with the Father and the Son, he demonstrates that this manner of glorifying is both customary among the ancient Fathers and flourishes throughout the entire West and East. Then he speaks thus (cap. 29, p. 63): "How then does it come about that I am an innovator, and the architect of recent words? When I have the whole of the nations, the cities, and a custom more ancient than all human memory, and furthermore, men who are pillars of the Church, excelling in all knowledge and ^B virtue, as distinct leaders and patrons of this expression? Because of these things, that hostile battle-line is stirred up against us, and every city, village, and all the furthest borders are full of the voices of those slandering us. This is indeed troublesome and to be lamented by the hearts of those seeking peace: but because there is a great reward for patience, which will follow the afflictions endured for the faith, even if the sword should shine, and the axe be sharpened, and the fire burn more vehemently than that Babylonian one, and all the instruments of torture be moved against us; as far as I am concerned, I think there is nothing more formidable than not fearing the threats which the Lord has leveled against those who cast blasphemies against the Spirit. Therefore, to sensible men, these things which have been said suffice for my vindication, because we receive an utterance so pleasing and familiar to the saints, and, moreover, confirmed by such long usage. For from the time the Gospel was announced down to the present, it is shown to have been in use in the Churches: and what is greatest of all, it is demonstrated to have a pious and religious sense."

Not less evident was Basil's zeal and intensity of spirit in defending the authority of the councils. Hence he declares (epist. 114) that the three hundred and eighteen Fathers did not speak without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Although, therefore, he was not asked to depart from the faith and sentiment of the synod, but only to concede one word to the emperor, sanctioned by its authority (11); he could not be induced, either by the threats of exile or of tortures, nor—what should have been more grievous to a holy bishop—by fear of the wolves threatening the flock, to admit this wickedness.

III. Scultetus objects to that passage of Basil from epist. 189: "They accuse us, he says (p. 277, n. 3), because we say one goodness, and one power, and one divinity." And they are not beside the truth: for we do say so. "But by accusing us, they object that they do not have such a custom, nor does Scripture agree. What then shall we make of this also? We do not think it is fair that the custom flourishing among them should be the law and norm of right doctrine. For if custom is valid for the demonstration of right doctrine; it is permitted for us indeed to oppose the custom used among us. But if they reject this, it is by no means necessary for us to follow them. Therefore, let the divinely inspired Scripture be our arbiter; and to those among whom dogmas found in agreement with divine words coincide, to them will the suffrage of truth entirely descend." From these, Scultetus concludes that the judgment and arbitration of controversies are attributed by Basil to Scripture alone.

Others have often decanted this passage of Basil before; but nevertheless, I do not see what it profits them. For, 1st, even if Basil had truly and sincerely conceded to the Pneumatomachi that the judgment of the controversy which he had with them was to be sought from Scripture alone; what would this do for the Protestants? The Caesarean custom, preaching one goodness, one power in the divine persons, was contrary to the custom which the Pneumatomachi set against the Church of their own.

Within this variety of customs, what wonder is it if Basil appeals to Scripture? But the Protestants, when they established their new kind of religion, had no custom or tradition to oppose to the constant tradition of the Church. Therefore they cannot use the authority of Basil, who does not reject tradition, but who resorts to Scripture only because a variety was falsely claimed to exist in the customs of the Churches.

2° This variety of tradition is a mere fabrication of the Pneumatomachi. For they were accustomed to attack—as a novelty—whatever overturned their heresy. Hence they kept dictating that the custom of glorifying the Spirit with the Father and the Son, which ^A Basil demonstrates to flourish and to have always flourished in all Churches (12), was something new and in no way approved by the Church. Indeed, even in this very letter 189, after they raise an objection regarding the custom of their church, they immediately confess their vanity and falsehood, and they do not object to there being one deity in the divine persons, provided it is not extended to the Holy Spirit. But Basil says (n. 4) that they reveal the purpose of their discourse more openly: they agree that it is fitting for the Father to be God and for the Son to be honored with the name of divinity, but they assert that the Spirit, who is numbered together with the Father and the Son, is not at all comprehended by the notion of divinity, but that the power of divinity is terminated at the Son, and the nature of the Spirit is severed from divine glory.

3° At the time when Basil wrote this letter to Eustathius the archiatros, he took up the counsel, at the request of Amphilochius, to write the book *On the Holy Spirit* against the Pneumatomachi: and since he defends tradition so fiercely in this work, no one could suspect that he rejected it in the letter. Moreover, when Basil appeals to the Scriptures, he does not, like the Protestants, permit their interpretation to the judgment of each individual. Not even the Pneumatomachi themselves arrogated this license to themselves. For although they had much power under Valens, because they nevertheless wished to rule in the Church and to make the people their own, they were compelled for the most part to accommodate themselves to the interpretations of Scripture practiced in the Church. Hence, in the year 371, when they were watching Basil with ill intent, they ^B heard him patiently as he discoursed on the divinity of the Holy Spirit (13); and since he had not called the Spirit "God" by name, they were not able to seize a cause for waging war upon him. However, in the year 374, they criticized him only for this: that he glorified the Spirit with the Father and the Son (14); they dared not censure the rest.

IV. Scultetus also uses the moral rule of Saint Basil 26, chapter 1, where it is held: "That every word or deed must be confirmed by the testimony of Divine Scripture for the full persuasion of the good and the shaming of the wicked." And rule 80, chapter 22, where he establishes that it is a mark of the faithful to dare to reject nothing of what has been written, nor to add anything to these things. For, says Basil, if "everything that is not of faith is sin," as the Apostle says (Rom. xiv, 23), "faith however comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of God" (Rom. x, 17), then everything that is outside of Divine Scripture, since it is not of faith, is sin. The same Scultetus collects some other passages in which it is similarly sanctioned that nothing should be added to or taken away from Sacred Scripture. And he concludes that those things which are not written are to be considered as belonging to the realm of freedom, from these words (15): "Since some things are declared in Holy Scripture by the commandment of the Lord, and others are passed over in silence; concerning those things which are written, it is allowed to no one at all to do anything of those things which are forbidden, or to omit anything of those things which have been commanded... but concerning those things which are passed over in silence, the apostle Paul handed down to us a rule, when he said: 'All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient.' Let no one seek his own, but each one the things of the other. Wherefore it is absolutely necessary either to be subject to God through His commandment, or to others on account of His commandment."

Truly vain is the labor of Scultetus in collecting such testimonies. In the first, Basil is an author who wants scriptural testimonies to be used in exhorting and rebuking; then he says in the following chapter that those things also which are known in nature or the custom of life are to be used for the confirmation of those things which are done or said. Who from this would suspect that it follows that the authority and standard for settling controversies resides with Scripture alone, and that there is no account to be taken of the divine word, which the whole Church preserves, having been preached by the apostles by word of mouth?

When Basil forbids anything to be added to or taken away from Scripture, he by no means excludes tradition. For he teaches (16) that those names and words are to be used in refuting heretics which indeed are not found by letters and syllables in Divine Scripture, but which nevertheless preserve the meaning that Scripture sets forth. But those things which, beyond the novelty of their phrasing, exhibit to us a new and foreign meaning, and which are not found to have been used by the saints, these he declares himself to shun as foreign and alien to the pious faith. Therefore, Basil does not dissociate tradition from Scripture, but he denies that those things which rely on tradition and have been used by the saints are foreign and alien to the faith, even if they are not read by name in the Scriptures. Hence, in the testimony which has been extracted from moral rule 80, he makes no distinction regarding the divine word, whether it be written or preached by voice. For he proves whatever... ^{C D}

is outside of Scripture to be sin, because whatever is not of faith is sin, and faith comes from hearing, that is to say, of the divine word, whether preached or written. In the second book against Eunomius (p. 243) he inculcates the same precept, that nothing is to be added or taken away from those things which have been delivered by the Holy Spirit; and he makes specific mention of Scripture and of tradition. Therefore he says that he who has the judgment of Christ before his eyes, and knows how perilous it is to take anything away from, or to add to, those things which have been delivered by the Spirit, must not attempt to innovate anything by his own authority, but must acquiesce in those things which were formerly proclaimed by the saints. What, therefore, neither common custom nor the use of the Scriptures has admitted, to dare to do that, is it not the height of folly?

Scultetus is charged with great negligence from the testimony which he took from Short Rule 1. For by those words which have been passed over in silence, Basil does not understand those matters regarding which nothing is read in Scripture, but those regarding which nothing is specifically prescribed or forbidden, such as foods sacrificed to idols. The matter is clear from the words of Paul which Basil cites. ^B

V. Another testimony brought forward by the same Scultetus must not be omitted, from moral rule 72, chapter 1, where these words are read: That those auditors who are learned in the Scriptures ought to examine and approve those things which are said by the teachers; and those things which are consonant with the Scriptures they should receive; but those which are alien, they should reject, and those who persevere in such doctrines they should the more vehemently avert from.

The Church of Neocaesarea provides us with certain arguments which seem not to be omitted here. Musonius, who governed this Church in most difficult times, used to admonish thus, when he preached: Beware of the dogs (ep. 28, p. 108), beware of the evil workers. But how did he keep these dogs away from the flock? He was a man enemy to novelty, showing (p. 106) in himself the ancient countenance of the Church, fashioning the form of the Church committed to him to the ancient state, as if to a certain sacred image, so that those who lived with him seemed to themselves to have lived together with those who had shone forth like luminaries two hundred years before and more. So he brought forward nothing of his own, nor any invention of a more recent mind; but according to the blessing of Moses he knew how to bring forth from the arcanum of his heart, that is, from good treasures, the old of the old, and the old before the face of the new.

How great the utility of such instruction was, Basil demonstrates thereafter (p. 107), that the Neocaesareans alone, or certainly with very few others, in such a great tempest and storm of affairs, lived a tranquil life while Musonius governed them. For the heat of heretical winds, bringing about submersions and shipwrecks for souls easily mutable, did not touch them.

Atarbius succeeded to the see of Musonius, not to his faith and virtue; and since he attempted to introduce a heresy contrary to the Arian, Basil could not remain silent in such great destruction of souls, and he admonished the Neocaesareans in many letters that they should beware of this teacher for themselves. Thus he addresses them in ep. 210: The subversion of the faith, he says (n. 3, p. 314), is being devised among you, inimical to the apostolic and evangelical doctrines, inimical to the tradition of Gregory, truly great, and of those who succeeded him up to the blessed Musonius, whose teachings indeed still resonate in your ears. For the evil of Sabellius, indeed arisen long ago, but extinguished by the tradition of that great man, those men now attempt to renew, who, while they fear lest they be refuted, imagine dreams against us.

Not without purpose did Scultetus cut away these words, *those who are learned in the Scriptures*, τοὺς πεπαιδευμένους τὰς Γραφάς. For from these there is a manifest conclusion that Scripture is not proposed to all as the sole rule of faith, nor is it clear and perspicuous to all in those things which pertain to faith. Hence, in the following chapter, Basil gives instructions to those who are not much versed in the Scriptures to distinguish good and bad shepherds by their fruits. Furthermore, he does not concede even to the leaders that they may interpret Scripture at their own whim, and as each will seem to himself to have been taught by the Holy Spirit. But he understands that interpretation of Scripture which rests upon the authority of the Church and the constant consent of tradition. For he himself (ep. 204, n. 6) had avoided Arian novelties, especially by this path. For, when he had been taught by his grandmother Macrina, who handed on to him the words of the most blessed Gregory, whatever had arrived at her by the continuation of memory; after he had departed from his fatherland into foreign provinces, if he found any walking according to the delivered rule of piety, them he held in the place of fathers, and followed them as guides of his soul. Thus he used to distinguish truth from heresy, pastors from wolves, not by relying on his own studies of Scripture, but by constantly retaining those things which... ^{B C}

§ VII

I. S. Basil in conceived words teaches that Christ is present in the eucharist. II. He requires that we believe that, "This is my body," no less certainly than that, "The Word was made flesh." III. An eminent passage is misinterpreted by Scultetus. IV. The opinion of Basil is confirmed from the prayers of the liturgy.

I. Whether the books *On Baptism* are to be ascribed to Basil or not, they certainly can be cited and praised under his name, since they are composed entirely from his sentiments and words. In the second book it is asked, chapter 2: Whether he who is not pure in heart on account of a depraved conscience, or uncleanness, or defilement, can sacrifice without danger. To the question is added the re- ^D

response: The Apostle teaches us fear, saying: “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.” But faith in the words of the Lord produces assurance, since He said: “This is my body, which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” Also, it must not be judged or doubted regarding things said by the Lord, but... ^A ...that he be fully persuaded that every word of God is true and possible, even if nature resists; for here lies the struggle of faith. To confirm this rule, he refers, among other things, to that passage: “The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” 19

In several places Basil discusses the best manner of communicating, which he teaches consists in this: that we believe with certainty that Christ was crucified for us, and that His flesh and blood are set before us, and that by this remembrance of His passion we are kindled to love Him. Thus, in the shorter rule 172, this question is instituted: With what fear, or with what persuasion of mind, or with what affection should we be partakers of the body and blood of Christ? Such an inquiry is evidence that a great mystery is being enacted, which ought to strike terror and demand great faith and holiness. In this, a comparison is drawn from those things which were required of the priests of the old law. Then, regarding the priests of the new law, it is established thus: The Lord, when He says: “In this place is one greater than the temple,” 15 teaches us how much more impious he is who dares to offer the body of the Lord, who gave Himself up for us as an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor, 16 than the body of the only-begotten Son of God excels ^B rams and bulls; which statement should be taken without comparison, for the excellence is incomparable.

Thus also in the third chapter, from the punishment imposed by the law upon those who dared to touch holy things while unclean, it is demonstrated how great a crime it is to eat unworthily of the Lord’s body: “For if,” according to the voice of the Lord, “there is something here greater than the temple, by so much is it more serious and more formidable to dare to touch the body of Christ in the defilement of the soul, than to touch rams or bulls,” as the Apostle says: “So that whosoever shall eat,” etc. 17 Truly, there exists nothing in these testimonies that can be evaded or distorted. The body of Christ is sacrificed and consecrated: Christ is present at the altar, “A greater than the temple is here.” That distinction is established between the sacrifices of the old and new law, in that in the former calves and bulls were killed, in ours the body of Christ is offered; a distinction surely fictitious, if the sacrifice of the new law represents the body of an absent Christ; whereas the sacrifices of the old law accomplished the same thing; and that all the more aptly and significantly, in that the slaughter of an animal is more apt for representing the death of Christ than are inanimate things, ^C bread and wine.

The same sentiment is stated in fewer words in the *Shorter Rules*. “If anyone,” says Basil (interrog. 309), “being in a state of uncleanness, approaches the holy things, we learn the terrible judgment upon him even from the Old Testament. But if there is something here greater than the temple, the Apostle will surely teach us in a more formidable way, as he said: ‘He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.’” 18

II. Among those things which we must certainly believe, even if nature resists, Basil numbers the Eucharist. For we have this rule in the book of the *Moralia* (reg. 8, p. 240): “That one ought not to judge or doubt concerning the things said by the Lord, but that every word of God is true and possible, even if nature resists; for here lies the struggle of faith. To confirm this rule, he refers among other things to that passage: ‘The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’” 19

In several places Basil discusses the best manner of communicating, which he teaches consists in this: that we believe with ^D certainty that Christ was crucified for us, and that His flesh and blood are set before us, and that by this remembrance of His passion we are kindled to love Him. Thus, in the shorter rule, this question is instituted: With what fear, or with what persuasion of mind, or with what affection should we be partakers of the body and blood of Christ? Such an inquiry is evidence that a great mystery is being enacted, which ought to strike terror and demand great faith and holiness. To the question is added the response: The Apostle teaches us fear, saying: “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.” 20 But faith produces assurance through the words of the Lord, who said: “This is my body, which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 21 Also, from the faith of John’s testimony, who, having first mentioned the glory of the Word, subsequently introduced the mode of the Incarnation with these words: “The Word was made flesh,” 22 etc. Likewise, since the Apostle wrote: “Who, being in the form of God,” 23 etc.

There is no one who, reading these things, cannot easily perceive: 1st, that Christ’s words, “This is my body,” are proposed by Basil to be believed with the firmest faith; 2nd, that they are to be believed no less certainly than what follows, “The Word was made flesh,” etc., “Who, being in the form of God,” etc. For both testimonies—those which pertain to the Eucharist and those which pertain to the Incarnation—are proposed in exactly the same way, as being in words clear and open, but difficult by reason of the magnitude of the mystery: so that they do not need explanation to bring light to the words, but faith to the things to be believed. Nor is there anyone, assuredly, who, if the first...

^A part of the investigation be eluded, will not produce the second in the same way.

After Basil has set forth with what fear and with what persuasion of soul one must partake, he satisfies the third part of the investigation—with what affection one must approach this mystery—thus: "Since, therefore, the soul, believing these and such words, has learned the majesty of glory, and has admired the magnitude of humility and obedience, in that He was so obedient even unto death for the sake of our life, I deem that it is so affected that it loves simultaneously God and the Father, who did not spare His own Son but delivered Him for us all, and simultaneously His only-begotten Son, who obeyed even unto death for our redemption and salvation." He adds that he who is thus affected and prepared fulfills that of Paul: "For the love of Christ urgeth us," etc. And he concludes that whoever becomes a partaker of the bread and cup must be so affected and prepared.

The same doctrine is established in the Moral Rules and in the first book De baptismo. For in rule 21, chapter 2 (vol. II, p. 253), we read: That he who approaches communion without considering this rationale, according to which the participation of the body and blood of Christ is granted, gains no benefit from it: and that he who receives unworthily is condemned. And chapter 3: In what manner one must eat the body of the Lord and drink His blood in commemoration of the obedience of the Lord even unto death, so that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. Similarly, in the book De baptismo, chapter 3, after he has brought forward the same testimonies of Scripture, as in the book of Morals, namely from chapter vi (verse 54) of John: "Amen, amen I say unto you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man," etc., and from Matthew and Paul, who recount the institution of the Eucharist; he then truly concludes thus: What profit, therefore, have these words? That eating and drinking, we may be always mindful of Him who died for us and rose again; and so we may learn necessarily to preserve before God and Christ the dogma transmitted by the Apostle himself, who says: "For the love of Christ urgeth us; judging this, that if one died for all, then all were dead: and Christ died for all; that they who live may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them and rose again." There is no need of words so that it may be plain that in these places the very same opinion is established as in the Shorter Rules. The matter is in itself clear and manifest. For just as in the Shorter Rules this affection of soul is required for communion, so that out of the persuasion which the words of Christ, "This is my body," ought to imprint upon our souls, likewise out of the words of John, "The Word ^B was made flesh," and of Paul, "Who when He was in the form of God," etc., we may be inflamed to love Him who died for us; so in the books of the Morals and De baptismo the same identical rationale of partaking is prescribed for the commemoration of the Lord's passion.

Very absurdly, therefore, does Scultetus think that that of Basil makes for him: "What profit, therefore, have these words? That eating and drinking, we may be always mindful of Him, who," etc. For, 1st, that manner of partaking in the commemoration of the Lord is repeated, as we have already said, from faith and persuasion, which the words of Christ, "This is my body," and other testimonies in which His divinity and incarnation and passion are contained, ought to effect in our souls. 2nd, He does not say that the eating of the body of the Lord and the drinking of His blood is placed in the commemoration of His passion itself; but that that body ought to be so eaten, and the blood so drunk, that we may celebrate the commemoration of that passion. 3rd, He teaches that even those who communicate unworthily receive the body and blood of the Lord in commemoration of that passion, but do not express this memory in themselves: "For he who eateth and drinketh," he says, namely to the indelible memory of Jesus Christ our Lord, who died for us and rose again, but does not fulfill the rationale of the memory of the Lord's obedience even unto death according to the doctrine of the Apostle, who, as has been said, says, "The love of Christ urgeth us," etc., he gains no benefit.

What follows is censured by Combefis as harsher and more severe. Furthermore, he who is of such a sort also brings upon himself the judgment of the Apostle, who says: "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." For indeed it is a ^C horrible judgment not only for him who approaches the holy things unworthily in the pollution of flesh and spirit—for when he approaches, he becomes guilty of the body and blood of the Lord—but also for him who eats and drinks idly and uselessly. These things are utterly unjustly censured. For he is said to eat idly and uselessly who eats without charity; and this is plain both from the preceding words and from the rationale which Basil adds as to why a horrible judgment awaits such a man: Because, he says, he does not by the memory of Jesus Christ our Lord, who died for us and rose again, keep what was said: "The love of Christ urgeth us," etc.

III. Scultetus uses another testimony of Basil, which he reports as follows: Christ called His entire mystical conversation in the flesh and the doctrine of the Gospel His flesh and blood. From which Scultetus concludes ^D

^A that no one else eats this flesh and drinks this blood, save he who applied all these things to himself with a faithful heart.

But Scultetus exhibits no more praiseworthy faith in reporting this testimony than he does skill in explaining it. For we read this passage thus in Epistle 8, n. 4, where Basil offers a solution to the testimony objected to by the Arians, *I live because of the Father*: "He is also able to call 'life' that which Christ lives, having the Word of God within Himself; and we shall know that this is what is signified from what follows. *And he who eats me*, He says, *will live because of me.* For we eat His flesh and drink His blood, becoming participants through the incarnation and the sensible life of the Word and Wisdom; for He called His entire mystical presence 'flesh and blood,' and indicated the teaching composed of practical, natural, and theological knowledge, by which the soul is nourished and is prepared for the time being for the contemplation of beings." He can also mean the life which Christ lives, having the Word of God in Himself. And that this is indeed what is signified, we shall see from what follows. "And he who eats me, he says, will live because of me." For we eat His flesh and drink His blood, having become participants, through the incarnation and the sensible life, of the Word and Wisdom. For He called His flesh and blood His whole mystical conversation in the flesh, and declared the doctrine consisting of practical, natural, and theological notion, through which the soul is nourished and is meanwhile prepared for the contemplation of those things which are. ^B

Basil therefore compares the life which the sacred humanity, hypostatically united with the Word, lives, with the life which we draw from the Eucharist. In both, however, he marvelously commends the catholic dogma, both when he says that we eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood, and when he explains the kind of life we receive from His flesh and blood. In those very words, he certainly declares that we so eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood as to become, at the same time, participants of the Word and Wisdom, because by the names of flesh and blood, the whole person of Christ, His whole mystical conversation in the flesh, or mystical advent, is designated. But if we were to appropriate the flesh and blood of Christ not in reality but by faith alone, it would be absurd to say that we become participants of the Word and Wisdom through this flesh and blood. For then both the flesh and the Word would be appropriated in the same way, namely, by the benefit of faith. Furthermore, why does he instruct that by Christ’s flesh and blood the whole mystical advent of Christ in the flesh, or His whole person, is designated; ^C why, I ask, does he instruct this, unless to demonstrate that it is not inanimate flesh, nor flesh separated from divinity, that is set before us? But if this flesh is received by faith alone, where is there any room for fear that it might be inanimate or separated from divinity? Thus also Basil, in order to demonstrate the similarity between the life we draw from the Eucharist and the life which the sacred humanity united hypostatically with the Word lives, warns that this life pertains to the soul. But the warning is entirely useless if we perceive the flesh and blood not with the mouth, but with the mind alone; the whole comparison is also entirely absurd, if, while Christ's humanity is hypostatically united with the Word, we are united with His flesh and blood only by the mind.

IV. To these must be added what is read in the book *On the Holy Spirit*, exhibiting the faith not only of Basil but of all Christians: ^D "The words of invocation at the manifestation of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing, which of the saints has left to us in writing? For we are not content with those things which the Apostle or the Gospel mentioned, but we also say other things before and after, as having great power for the mystery, having received them from unwritten teaching." The words of invocation, he says (cap. 27, n. 66), when the eucharistic bread and the cup of blessing are made, what saint has left to us in writing? For we are not limited to those things which the Apostle or the Gospel commemorates, but we speak others also before and after, as having much weight for the mystery, which we have received from non-written tradition. No one would deny that the prayers which are attributed to him in the liturgy are indicated by Basil (tom. II, p. 679): "May Thy Holy Spirit come upon us and upon these Thy proposed gifts, and hallow and show them to be the Holy of Holies; and may He make this bread to be the holy body of Himself, our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins and for eternal life to those who partake of Him; and this cup, the precious blood of the New Testament of Himself, our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, etc." Whence, however, such prayers in all the Churches, if not from the most certain faith, by which all Christians believed that bread and wine were changed into the body and blood of Christ? For to whom would it have come into mind to pray for this? Who would have added these prayers, as having much weight for the mystery, to the evangelical words, if it were not the Church's purpose to obtain the change?

^A § VIII. 1. St. Basil's testimonies concerning the confession of sins. 2. Envy and similar sins subject to the law of confession. 3. Concerning original sin. 4. Concerning the grace of Christ.

I. I would draw out the time for longer than I intend, if I were to linger in gathering together all the things which can be extracted from the works of St. Basil for the confirmation of dogmas. Therefore, we shall finish this discussion by appending the testimonies concerning the confession of sins, original sin, and the grace of Christ.

Basil teaches that the confession of sins is necessary for obtaining pardon from God in his *Homily on Psalm XXXII*: "The Judge wishes to have mercy on you," he says (p. 134), "and to make you a participant in His mercies, if after the sin He finds you humble, contrite, greatly lamenting your wicked deeds, and revealing those things done in secret without shame, asking the brethren to be of help to you in receiving a cure." In the *Shorter Rules*, this question is proposed (q. 229): "Whether it is right to reveal forbidden actions to everyone without shame, or only to some, and who these are?" St. Basil answers thus: "The same principle is to be observed in the confession of sins as is applied in revealing bodily diseases. Therefore, just as men do not make their bodily diseases known to everyone, nor to just anyone, but to those who are skilled in curing them, so too must the confession of sins be made before those who are able to cure these, as it is written: 'You who are strong, bear the infirmities of the weak' (Rom. xv, 1; Gal. vi, 2), that is, take them away by your care and diligence." There is a similar question, 288: "If one wishes to confess his sins, ought he to confess them to everyone and anyone, or to certain persons?" Basil answers thus: "The counsel of the bounty of God in those who sin is manifest, according to that which is written: 'I do not desire the death of the sinner, but that he be converted and live' (Ezech. XXXIII, 11). Since, therefore, the manner of penance ought to fit the sin, and there is also a need for fruits worthy of penance, according to this thought: 'Bring forth fruits worthy of penance' (Luc. iii, 8), so that there may be no place for the threats that follow by reason of a lack of fruits. 'For,' he says, 'every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire' (Ibid. 9), it is necessary to confess sins to those to whom the dispensation of the mysteries of God has been entrusted (I Cor. iv, 1). For so also those who performed penance of old are found to have done so before the saints. For it is written in the Gospel indeed that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist; in the Acts, however (Acts xix, 8), to the apostles themselves, by whom also all were baptized." See the *Commentary on Isaiah*, p. 553.

Scultetus (17) denies that a specific enumeration of sins or the necessity of ^B confession can be elicited from these places. But he leaves no ground for evasion, whether taken from the example of bodily diseases, or from the fact that Basil says the method of imposing penance must fit the sin. For how will the disease of the soul be cured if the number and grave circumstances of the sins are concealed? Or how will the penalty suit the number and magnitude of the sins, unless the individual sins and circumstances are revealed? That phrase, *τῆς ἐπιστροφῆς ὁ τρόπος*, ought to be rendered "the method of imposing penance," or "the method of penalty," but by no means "the method of conversion." For that term is accustomed to be used in that sense in such places, of which matter many examples abound in Basil, as in Epist. 73. Therefore, Scultetus contends in vain that the necessity of confessing, which is dealt with in q. 288, rests on this: that if someone wishes to confess his sins, even though it may not be necessary, he should not confess them to others than those to whom the dispensation of the mysteries of God has been entrusted. If confession were permitted to anyone's own discretion, and there were no necessity for confessing, it would be much better and safer to confess sins before men of prudence and distinguished piety than before presbyters, who do not always excel in prudence and piety. Therefore, when Basil says it is necessary to confess sins to those to whom the dispensation of the mysteries of God has been entrusted, he demonstrates simultaneously that the confession of sin is necessary and that penance is to be numbered among the sacraments.

I pass over another cavil of Scultetus, who objects that the confessions of sins attributed to St. Basil before baptism were neither prescribed, nor did they involve an enumeration of individual sins. But he does not at all prove that Basil ought not to have used these examples to exhort [people] to the confession of all sins prescribed by Christ, and to call them back from shameful modesty.

Scultetus also uses the *Shorter Rule* 110, in which it is commanded that virgins confess to the presbyter through their superior or elder woman. But this defect of the earlier editions has been corrected in this latest one, and Basil commands nothing else except that the superior of the virgins be present for the sake of decency while the sisters make their confession to the presbyter. He had prescribed the same thing previously in rule 108: that a superior, in the absence of the head ^D of the women, should not speak with the sisters about matters pertaining to the edification of faith. But lest this be seen to imply that the confession of sins should have been excepted, he thought it should be prevented.

Three of his canonical epistles confirm this doctrine of Basil; while they accurately detail various types and degrees of sins, they demonstrate how strictly the precept of confessing was observed, and how great was the diligence of the bishops in punishing sins according to their merit. Adulterous women (ep.

200, can. 34), whether self-confessed or convicted, did not undergo the various grades of penance, but fulfilled the time among the consistentes. For there was caution lest they be thrown into the danger of death if the sin were made public. But, if there were no precept for confessing and punishing sin, why was the penance not remitted even for those among the consistentes, who were certainly not free from danger? Why did one convicted of theft (ep. 247, can. 61) sustain a punishment twice as severe as one who confessed voluntarily? No one is entirely immune from this law of confessing sins. Presbyters and deacons (can. 70), who confessed that they had sinned only in word, lost their rank; nor was communion with presbyters or deacons left even to them if they were caught having sinned in any greater degree.

II. In these canons, no punishments are specifically set for avarice, envy, and other such vices. But it should not therefore be thought that they were not subject to the law of confession. For Basil, in the Shorter Rules, after he (reg. 288) establishes that sins are to be confessed only to those to whom the dispensation of the mysteries of God has been entrusted, institutes this question: *Ὁ μετανοήσας ἐπὶ ἁμαρτήματι, καὶ πάλιν εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ ἐμπεσὼν ἁμάρτημα, τί ποιήσει* (reg. 289); “He who has done penance for a sin, and falls back into the same sin, what shall he do?” Basil declares that such men relapse because they do not remove the root of the sin, and he brings forward by way of example envy and strife, which pullulate from the root of the love of glory. Whence he concludes thus: If anyone, therefore, when he has once condemned himself for envy or strife, falls into them again, let him know that he is suffering in his inner depths from the primary cause of envy or strife, love of glory.

Such sins, therefore, were left to the care of the prudence of the priests: but they were not on that account removed from the law of confession. And we can confirm this with the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa, who, when complaining in his canonical epistle that no canons had been established by the Fathers for certain sins, such as insults (p. 119), curses (p. 121), usury, and the seizure of another’s property under the pretext of business, does not assume so much authority to himself as to constitute canons of that sort; yet he manifests that these sins are subject to confession and must be treated with the utmost diligence by the priests. For thus he speaks concerning that seizure of another’s property during business: “But he who through secret theft appropriates for himself what is another’s, and then by confession makes his transgression known to the priest, shall heal his infirmity by the zeal applied to the opposite passion; I mean, by providing what he possesses to the poor, so that by bestowing what he has, he may become manifest as cleansed from the disease of covetousness; but if he has nothing, and has only his body, the Apostle commands that by bodily labor he should heal such an infirmity.” But he who through hidden theft appropriates the property of another for himself, and then reveals his fault to the priest through confession, shall cure the illness by the fervor of his zeal regarding the opposite passion: I mean by distributing what he has to the poor, that by spending what he has, he may openly show himself free from the disease of avarice: but if he possesses nothing other than his own body, the Apostle bids him to heal that disease by means of bodily labor. Basil has similar thoughts regarding usury (can. 14, ep. 188), which he does not exclude one who has accepted from the priesthood, provided he spends the unjust gain on the poor and shows himself free from the disease of avarice.

III. The sin which we have all inherited from our first parent, Basil proclaims in such a way that it is easily apparent that St. Augustine defended nothing against the Pelagians except what was established by the perpetual preaching of the Church. “Resolve,” says Basil in his homily on the famine (p. 70), “the primal sin, by the distribution of food.” For just as Adam transmitted sin by an improper meal: so do we abolish the insidious food, if we care for the need and hunger of our brother. And in psalm XXIX (p. 129): “I was indeed beautiful,” he says, “by nature, but languid, because I was dead to sin on account of the serpent’s snares.” Elsewhere (in psalm XXXII, p. 152) he calls the serpent the author of sin. Ibidem (p. 135): “On account of the condemnation brought upon us for sin, we are called earth, we who heard from God: ‘Earth you are, and unto earth you shall go.’” And in psalm XXXIII (p. 158): “Since those who had been created in order to serve the Lord were held under the servitude of the enemy, He redeemed their souls with His precious blood.”

At other times Basil often speaks of the sin of the first parents, not as something belonging to the personal blame of Adam and Eve, but as pertaining to their descendants. Adam, he says in his homily, *That God is not the author of evils* (vol. II, p. 79), by withdrawing from God, brought death upon himself, according to that which is written: “Behold, those who remove themselves from you, shall perish.” Thus God did not create death, but we ourselves summoned it by our wicked mind. We must not omit the distinguished testimony from epist. 261, n. 2, where Basil speaks thus: “Therefore, if the coming of the Lord in the flesh had not occurred, the Redeemer would not have given a price for us to death, nor would He have broken the kingdom of death by Himself. For if what was subject to the empire of death were one thing, and that which was taken by the Lord were another; death would not have ceased to work what was its own, nor would the sufferings of the God-bearing flesh have been our gain: sin would not have been killed in the flesh: we would not have been made alive in Christ, who were dead in Adam; what had collapsed would not have been repaired; what was broken would not have been restored; what had been alienated by the serpent’s fraud would not have been joined to God.” In his book

On Baptism*, the following is read (cap. 2, n. 7): “That, therefore, ‘anew,’ I judge to show the amendment of the former generation, which was made in the filth of sins, when Job says: ‘No one is pure from filth, not even if one day be his life,’ and David laments and says: ‘In iniquities I was conceived, and in sins did my mother conceive me,’ and the Apostle thus testifies: ‘For all have sinned and need the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed as a propitiation through faith in His blood.’ Wherefore, also, remission of sins is given to believers, the Lord Himself saying: ‘This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins’: as the Apostle again testifies, saying: ‘According to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He hath graced us in the Beloved, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of His grace of which He has bestowed upon us abundantly’; so that, just as a statue crushed and broken, having lost the excellent form of the king, is re-formed by a wise and good craftsman, who repairs the glory of his work, and it is restored to its ^B former splendor: so also may we, having been ill-affected because of the transgression of the precept, as it is written: ‘Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he is compared to senseless cattle, and is become like to them,’ be recalled to the former glory of the image of God.”

IV. That man thus affected needs the grace of God to anticipate him and bestow upon him a new creation, Basil demonstrates marvelously in many places, some testimonies of which we shall set down here. “Whence, then, comes the ability to me,” he says in the *Psalm* XXIX (p. 125), “to exalt Thee: ‘For Thou hast taken me up, anticipating me?’ He said clearly, ‘Thou hast taken me up,’ instead of ‘Thou hast lifted me up,’ and hast made me superior to those rising up against me. As if someone, taking by the hand a boy unskilled in swimming, should hold him up higher than the waters. He, therefore, who by God’s help rises from a fall, by a sign of a grateful mind promises exaltation to God through good works. Or as if someone, supporting a weak wrestler, should free him from an imminent fall, and make him superior to his opponent: he provides the occasion of victory to the one, but to the other, he takes away the joy conceived from the fall of the other.” See the same homily, n. 5, p. 126; and n. 5, p. 129, and another homily on ^C *Psalm* XLIV, n. 4, and *Regulae Morales* 55, and on *Isaiah*, p. 610. And in the homily *On Humility* (p. 159): “There is nothing, man, left to you from which you can glory... What then, tell me, I pray, do you puff yourself up as if of your own goods, when you ought to have gratitude toward the Giver for the gifts you have received? For what have you that you have not received? And if you have received, why do you glory as if you had not received?” You did not know God through your own justice; but God knew you because of His own goodness. “When you have known God,” he says, “or rather are known by God.” You did not apprehend Christ through virtue, but Christ apprehended you through His advent. “I pursue,” he says, “if I may also apprehend, wherein I am also apprehended by Christ.” “You have not chosen Me,” says the Lord, “but I have chosen you.” Or because you have been favored with honor, do you glory and seize upon mercy as an occasion for pride? And then you should know yourself, who you are, like Adam cast out of paradise, like Saul forsaken by the Spirit of God, like Israel severed from the holy root. “By faith,” he says, “you stand: be not high-minded, but fear.” Judgment follows grace; and the judge weighs how you have used what was given. In the things that follow, the gift of perseverance is commended: but if you do not even understand this, that you have obtained grace, or if out of excessive stupidity you think your own virtue to be grace, you are not superior to the blessed Apostle Peter. For you will not be able to follow the Lord with greater love than he, who loved Him so vehemently that he even desired to die for Him. But, because he spoke with a prouder spirit when he said: ^D “Although all shall be scandalized in You, I yet will never be scandalized,” he was consigned to human timidity, and fell into denial, to be instructed by the fall toward fear and caution, and to be taught to spare the weak and feeble, because he recognized his own infirmity, and clearly understood that just as when he was drowning in the sea, he was rescued by the right hand of Christ, so in the storm of scandal he was saved by the virtue of Christ because of his lack of faith. In *Psalm* XXXII, n. 2: “For neither in the power of man, nor in wisdom, but in the grace of God is salvation.” See the homily on *Psalm* VII, on these words: “And Thou shalt direct the just.” Thus he speaks in the homily on *Psalm* XXXII, n. 5 (p. 137): “And there is also much difference in sins and in right actions: for this latter was sold for a price, so that it is in sin, while the former, having obtained goodness from the beginning, was nurtured in virginity. Why this one should be affected by a benefit, and that one condemned; and what is to be rendered to each of these by the judge; upon all which things coming into your mind, consider that the judgments of God are abysses, and cannot be easily comprehended by anyone, because they are enclosed in divine treasures.” But the promise of believing is also given by God, namely: “I will give you the hidden and invisible [index: entries preserved] treasures.” After, therefore, we shall have been deemed worthy of that knowledge which is face to face, we shall also look upon the abysses which are in the treasures of God. But if you gather those things which are said in Scripture regarding the bottles, you will more fully attain the understanding of the prophetic sentiment. And n. 7: “And because many are called, but few are chosen,”

he says, “he is not called, but elected.” For blessed ^A is he whom he has chosen. But what is the cause of this blessedness? It is the expected inheritance of eternal goods. “But not everyone is saved, but only the remnant according to the election of grace.” See Homily on Ps. CXIV, n. 5, p. 202.

It is sufficiently evident from the things we have brought forward how much divine power shines forth in the conversion of the human heart. But furthermore, some other things should be reported to the same effect. Let us therefore be subject to God, he says (in Ps. LXI, n. 2), because salvation is from him. And he explains what salvation is. It is not some bare operation bringing us any benefit by which we are liberated from infirmity and enjoy a sound state of body. But what is salvation? “For he is my God, and my Savior, my protector, I shall not be moved much.” The Son, who is from God, is our God. He is also the Savior of the human race, supporting our debility and correcting the agitation arriving in our souls from temptations. See Homily on Ps. XXXII, n. 3, p. 133, and on Ps. XXXIII, n. 4, p. 146, and the Homily on Faith, p. 133, and Moral Rule 55, ch. 1.

He ^B sends forth, renewing our souls from the death of sin into their original life: and he operates our life. And ch. 19, p. 41: Whether one takes creation as the reviving of those who have perished; is it not a great operation of the Spirit, who supplies us with life from resurrection, and adapts our souls for that spiritual life? Or whether creation is said to be the change of those who have fallen here through sin into a better state (for thus it is also sometimes used according to the custom of Scripture, as when Paul says: “If there is any new creation in Christ”), the renewal which occurs here, and the transmutation—occurring in us through the Spirit—from terrestrial life and that which is subject to turbulent passions to heavenly conversation, leads our minds to the highest admiration. Similarly in Epist. 8, n. 11: We find three kinds of creation named in Scripture. One, indeed, and the first, is the production from nothing: the second, however, is the change from worse to better; the third is the resurrection of the dead. In these you will find the Holy Spirit operating together with the Father and the Son. Often, in other places, the conversion of the heart is called a new creation, as in Ps. XXXII, p. 138; and in the homily, *That God is not the author of evils*, p. 75, and in Book V against Eunomius, p. 303, and in the *Commentary on Isaiah*, p. 423.

Basil demonstrates the divinity of the Son from his supreme authority over human minds. He is called a Rock, he says in the book *On the Holy Spirit*, ch. 8, p. 15, because he is strong and unshaken, and a bulwark for the faithful safer than any fortress. And p. 16: He does all things by the contact of power and by the will of his goodness. He feeds, illuminates, nurtures, leads, heals, ^C and raises up. Things that are not, he makes to be, and preserves those that have been established. In this way, goods reach us from God through the Son, operating in individuals with greater speed than any discourse could express. For neither lightning, nor the course of light through the air is so swift, nor the rapid strikes of the eyes, nor the motions of our own intellect: but each of these is surpassed more by the speed of the divine operation than the animals which are among us are—I do not say by birds or the winds—that is, they are surpassed not by the impetus of celestial spheres, but by the motion of our own mind. For what span of time could he require, who carries all things by the word of his power, and who operates not corporally, nor has the works of hands to complete his creation, but has the nature of those things which are made, obeying a will not compelled?

He uses no other argument more willingly to demonstrate the divinity of the Holy Spirit. For it is impossible, he says (ch. 12, p. 25), for anyone to adore the Son except in the Holy Spirit, or to invoke the Father except in the Spirit of adoption. See ch. 13, and Epist. 38, n. 4. He demonstrates in ch. 15 of the same book that the Holy Spirit cannot be separated ^D from the Father and the Son (p. 29), if indeed in baptism the vivifying power.

How much confidence Basil placed in divine grace can be perceived from these things which he speaks concerning reconciling the dissensions of the Church of Antioch in Epist. 66, p. 160: To reconcile these, he says, and to restore them to the harmony of one body, is the work of him alone, who even grants to dry bones, so that they may return again to nerves and flesh, by his ineffable power. But the Lord indeed accomplishes great things through those who are worthy of him. And in Epist. 203 (p. 300): For you are not ignorant that we are set openly before all, like rocks jutting out in the sea, to receive the fury of the waves of the heretics; and while they break around us, they do not wash over the things that are behind us. But that word, “we,” when I say it, I do not refer to human strength, but to the grace of God, who declares his power in the imbecility of men, just as the prophet says in the person of the Lord: “Will you not fear me, who have placed the sand as a bound for the sea?” For the Omnipotent has constrained the huge and heavy sea with sand, the most infirm and vile of all things. You have similar things in the homily on Ps. XXXII (p. 138): When therefore you hear someone threatening great things, and boasting that he will bring upon you all sorts of calamities, losses, or wounds, or death, look to the Lord who dissipates the counsels of the nations and reproves the thoughts of the peoples. And afterwards, n. 9 (p. 140): Therefore, neither does a king have a help sufficient for salvation from arms, nor can a strong man suffice unto himself for all things. For all human things are at once imbecility and infirmity, if compared with the true.