Letter LII.448    Placed at the beginning of St. Basil’s episcopate, c. 370.

To the Canonicæ.449    Canonicæ, in the early church, were women enrolled in a list in the churches, devoted to works of charity, and living apart from men, though not under vows, nor always in a cœnobium.  In Soc., H.E.i. 17 they are described as the recipients of St. Helena’s hospitality.  St. Basil is supposed to refuse to recognise marriage with them as legitimate in Ep. cclxxxviii.  The word κανονικῶν may stand for either gender, but the marriage of Canonici was commonly allowed.  Letter clxxiii. is addressed to the canonica Theodora.

1.  I have been very much distressed by a painful report which reached my ears; but I have been equally delighted by my brother, beloved of God, bishop Bosporius,450    Vide the Letter li. who has brought a more satisfactory account of you.  He avers by God’s grace that all those stories spread abroad about you are inventions of men who are not exactly informed as to the truth about you.  He added, moreover, that he found among you impious calumnies about me, of a kind likely to be uttered by those who do not expect to have to give the Judge in the day of His righteous retribution an account of even an idle word.  I thank God, then, both because I am cured of my damaging opinion of you, an opinion which I have derived from the calumnies of men, and because I have heard of your abandonment of those baseless notions about me, on hearing the assurances of my brother.  He, in all that he has said as coming from himself, has also completely expressed my own feeling.  For in us both there is one mind about the faith, as being heirs of the same Fathers who once at Nicæa promulgated their great decree451    κήρυγμα.  On Basil’s use of this word and of dogma, vide note on p. 41. concerning the faith.  Of this, some portions are universally accepted without cavil, but the homoousion, ill received in certain quarters, is still rejected by some.  These objectors we may very properly blame, and yet on the contrary deem them deserving of pardon.  To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency.  On the other hand the fact that they view with suspicion a phrase which is misrepresented by an opposite party does seem to a small extent to relieve them from blame.  Moreover, as a matter of fact, the members of the synods which met to discuss the case of Paul of Samosata452    i.e.the two remarkable Antiochene synods of 264 and 269, to enforce the ultimate decisions of which against Paul of Samosata appeal was made to the pagan Aurelian.  On the explanation of how the Homoousion came to be condemned in one sense by the Origenist bishops at Antioch in 269, and asserted in another by the 318 at Nicæa in 325, see prolegomena to Athanasius in Schaff and Wace’s ed. p. xxxi.  cf. Ath.,De Syn. § 45, Hil., De Trin. iv. 4, and Basil, Cont. Eunom. i. 19.  “Wurde seiner Lehre:  ‘Gott sey mit dem Logos zugleich Eine Person, ἓν πρόσωπονwie der Mensch mit seiner Vernunft Eines sey,’ entgegengehalteh, die Kirchenlehre verlange Einen Gott, aber mehrereπρόσωπα desselben, so sagte er, da auch ihm Christus eine Person (nämlich als Mensch) sey, so habe auch sein Glaube mehrereπρόσωπα, Gott und Christus stehen sich alsὁμοούσιοι, d. h. wahrscheinlich gleich persönliche gegenüber, Diese veratorische Dialektik konnte zwar nicht täuschen; wohl aber wurde das Wortὁμοούσιος, so gebraucht und auf die Person überhaupt bezogen, dadurcheine Weile verdächtig (man fürchtete nach Athan. De Syn. Ar. et Sel. c.45, eine menschliche Person nach Paul in die Trinität einlassen zu müssen), bis das vierte Jahrhundert jenem Wort bestimmten kirchlichen Stempel gab.”  Dorner, Christologie. B. i. 513.   Vide also Thomasius, Christliche Dogmengeschichte, B. 1, p. 188. did find fault with the term as an unfortunate one.

For they maintained that the homoousion set forth the idea both of essence and of what is derived from it, so that the essence, when divided, confers the title of co-essential on the parts into which it is divided.  This explanation has some reason in the case of bronze and coins made therefrom, but in the case of God the Father and God the Son there is no question of substance anterior or even underlying both; the mere thought and utterance of such a thing is the last extravagance of impiety.  What can be conceived of as anterior to the Unbegotten?  By this blasphemy faith in the Father and the Son is destroyed, for things, constituted out of one, have to one another the relation of brothers.

2.  Because even at that time there were men who asserted the Son to have been brought into being out of the non-existent, the term homoousion was adopted, to extirpate this impiety.  For the conjunction of the Son with the Father is without time and without interval.  The preceding words shew this to have been the intended meaning.  For after saying that the Son was light of light, and begotten of the substance of the Father, but was not made, they went on to add the homoousion, thereby showing that whatever proportion of light any one would attribute in the case of the Father will obtain also in that of the Son.  For very light in relation to very light, according to the actual sense of light, will have no variation.  Since then the Father is light without beginning, and the Son begotten light, but each of Them light and light; they rightly said “of one substance,” in order to set forth the equal dignity of the nature.  Things, that have a relation of brotherhood, are not, as some persons have supposed, of one substance; but when both the cause and that which derives its natural existence from the cause are of the same nature, then they are called “of one substance.”

3.  This term also corrects the error of Sabellius, for it removes the idea of the identity of the hypostases, and introduces in perfection the idea of the Persons.  For nothing can be of one substance with itself, but one thing is of one substance with another.  The word has therefore an excellent and orthodox use, defining as it does both the proper character of the hypostases, and setting forth the invariability of the nature.  And when we are taught that the Son is of the substance of the Father, begotten and not made, let us not fall into the material sense of the relations.  For the substance was not separated from the Father and bestowed on the Son; neither did the substance engender by fluxion, nor yet by shooting forth453    cf. Luke xxi. 30. as plants their fruits.  The mode of the divine begetting is ineffable and inconceivable by human thought.  It is indeed characteristic of poor and carnal intelligence to compare the things that are eternal with the perishing things of time, and to imagine, that as corporeal things beget, so does God in like manner; it is rather our duty to rise to the truth by arguments of the contrary, and to say, that since thus is the mortal, not thus is He who is immortal.  We must neither then deny the divine generation, nor contaminate our intelligence with corporeal senses.

4.  The Holy Spirit, too, is numbered with the Father and the Son, because He is above creation, and is ranked as we are taught by the words of the Lord in the Gospel, “Go and baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”454    Matt. xxviii. 19.  He who, on the contrary, places the Spirit before the Son, or alleges Him to be older than the Father, resists the ordinance of God, and is a stranger to the sound faith, since he fails to preserve the form of doxology which he has received, but adopts some new fangled device in order to be pleasing to men.  It is written “The Spirit is of God,”455    1 Cor. ii. 12. and if He is of God, how can He be older than that of which He is?  And what folly is it not, when there is one Unbegotten, to speak of something else as superior to the Unbegotten?  He is not even anterior, for nothing intervenes between Son and Father.  If, however, He is not of God but is through Christ, He does not even exist at all.  It follows, that this new invention about the order really involves the destruction of the actual existence, and is a denial of the whole faith.  It is equally impious to reduce Him to the level of a creature, and to subordinate Him either to Son or to Father, either in time or in rank.  These are the points on which I have heard that you are making enquiry.  If the Lord grant that we meet I may possibly have more to say on these subjects, and may myself, concerning points which I am investigating, receive satisfactory information from you.

ΚΑΝΟΝΙΚΑΙΣ

[1] Ὅσον ἠνίασεν ἡμᾶς πρότερον φήμη λυπηρὰ τὰς ἀκοὰς ἡμῶν περιηχήσασα, τοσοῦτον ηὔφρανεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεοφιλέστατος ἐπίσκοπος, ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἡμῶν Βοσπόριος, τὰ χρηστότερα τῆς εὐλαβείας ὑμῶν διηγησάμενος. Ἔφη γὰρ τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτι πάντα ἐκεῖνα τὰ θρυληθέντα ἀνθρώπων εἶναι κατασκευάσματα οὐκ ἀκριβῶς τὴν καθ' ὑμᾶς ἐπισταμένων ἀλήθειαν. Προσεπετίθει δὲ ὅτι καὶ διαβολὰς εὗρε παρ' ὑμῖν καθ' ἡμῶν ἀνοσίας καὶ τοιαύτας οἵας εἴποιεν ἂν οἱ μὴ ἐκδεχόμενοι καὶ περὶ ἀργοῦ ῥήματος δώσειν λόγον τῷ Κριτῇ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀνταποδόσεως αὐτοῦ τῆς δικαίας. Ὥστε ηὐχαρίστησα τῷ Κυρίῳ αὐτός τε ἰαθεὶς τὴν ἐφ' ὑμῖν βλάβην, ἥν, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἐκ συκοφαντίας ἀνθρώπων ἤμην παραδεξάμενος, ὑμᾶς τε ἀκούσας ἀποτεθεῖσθαι τὰς ψευδεῖς περὶ ἡμῶν ὑπολήψεις, ἐξ ὧν ἠκούσατε τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ἡμῶν βεβαιωσαμένου: ὃς ἐν οἷς τὸ καθ' ἑαυτὸν ὑμῖν παρέστησε συναπέδειξε πάντως καὶ τὸ ἡμέτερον. Ἓν γὰρ ἐν ἀμφοτέροις ἡμῖν τὸ τῆς πίστεως φρόνημα, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῶν αὐτῶν Πατέρων κληρονόμοι τῶν κατὰ τὴν Νικαίαν ποτὲ τὸ μέγα τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐξαγγειλάντων κήρυγμα: οὗ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα πάντα μαθεῖν ἐστιν ἀσυκοφάντητα, τὴν δὲ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου φωνήν, κακῶς παρά τινων ἐκληφθεῖσαν, εἰσί τινες οἱ μήπω παραδεξάμενοι: οὓς καὶ μέμψαιτο ἄν τις δικαίως καὶ πάλιν μέντοι συγγνώμης αὐτοὺς ἀξιώσειεν. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ Πατράσι μὴ ἀκολουθεῖν καὶ τὴν ἐκείνων φωνὴν κυριωτέραν τίθεσθαι τῆς ἑαυτῶν γνώμης ἐγκλήματος ἄξιον, ὡς αὐθαδείας γέμον: τὸ δὲ πάλιν ὑφ' ἑτέρων διαβληθεῖσαν αὐτὴν ὕποπτον ἔχειν, τοῦτο δή πως δοκεῖ τοῦ ἐγκλήματος αὐτοὺς μετρίως ἐλευθεροῦν. Καὶ γὰρ τῷ ὄντι οἱ ἐπὶ Παύλῳ τῷ Σαμοσατεῖ συνελθόντες διέβαλον τὴν λέξιν ὡς οὐκ εὔσημον. Ἔφασαν γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι τὴν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου φωνὴν παριστᾶν ἔννοιαν οὐσίας τε καὶ τῶν ἀπ' αὐτῆς, ὥστε καταμερισθεῖσαν τὴν οὐσίαν παρέχειν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου τὴν προσηγορίαν τοῖς εἰς ἃ διῃρέθη. Τοῦτο δὲ ἐπὶ χαλκοῦ μὲν καὶ τῶν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ νομισμάτων ἔχει τινὰ λόγον τὸ διανόημα, ἐπὶ Θεοῦ δὲ Πατρὸς καὶ Θεοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐκ οὐσία πρεσβυτέρα οὐδ' ὑπερκειμένη ἀμφοῖν θεωρεῖται: ἀσεβείας γὰρ ἐπέκεινα τοῦτο καὶ νοῆσαι καὶ φθέγξασθαι. Τί γὰρ ἂν γένοιτο τοῦ ἀγεννήτου πρεσβύτερον; Ἀναιρεῖται δὲ ἐκ τῆς βλασφημίας ταύτης καὶ ἡ εἰς τὸν Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν πίστις: ἀδελφὰ γὰρ ἀλλήλοις τὰ ἐξ ἑνὸς ὑφεστῶτα.

[2] Καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εἰς τὸ εἶναι παρῆχθαι τὸν Υἱὸν ἔτι τότε ἦσαν οἱ λέγοντες, ἵνα καὶ ταύτην ἐκτέμωσι τὴν ἀσέβειαν, τὸ ὁμοούσιον προσειρήκασιν. Ἄχρονος γὰρ καὶ ἀδιάστατος ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα συνάφεια. Δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ προλαβόντα ῥήματα ταύτην εἶναι τῶν ἀνδρῶν τὴν διάνοιαν. Εἰπόντες γὰρ Φῶς ἐκ Φωτὸς καὶ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν γεγενῆσθαι, οὐχὶ δὲ πεποιῆσθαι, ἐπήγαγον τούτοις τὸ ὁμοούσιον, παραδεικνύντες ὅτι ὅνπερ ἄν τις ἀποδῷ φωτὸς λόγον ἐπὶ Πατρός, οὗτος ἁρμόσει καὶ ἐπὶ Υἱοῦ. Φῶς γὰρ ἀληθινὸν πρὸς φῶς ἀληθινόν, κατ' αὐτὴν τοῦ φωτὸς τὴν ἔννοιαν, οὐδεμίαν ἕξει παραλλαγήν. Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐστιν ἄναρχον φῶς ὁ Πατήρ, γεννητὸν δὲ φῶς ὁ Υἱός, φῶς δὲ καὶ φῶς ἑκάτερος, ὁμοούσιον εἶπαν δικαίως, ἵνα τὸ τῆς φύσεως ὁμότιμον παραστήσωσιν. 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.

[3] Αὕτη δὲ ἡ φωνὴ καὶ τὸ τοῦ Σαβελλίου κακὸν ἐπανορθοῦται: ἀναιρεῖ γὰρ τὴν ταυτότητα τῆς ὑποστάσεως καὶ εἰσάγει τελείαν τῶν προσώπων τὴν ἔννοιαν: οὐ γὰρ αὐτὸ τί ἐστιν ἑαυτῷ ὁμοούσιον, ἀλλ' ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ: ὥστε καλῶς ἔχει καὶ εὐσεβῶς, τῶν τε ὑποστάσεων τὴν ἰδιότητα διορίζουσα καὶ τῆς φύσεως τὸ ἀπαράλλακτον παριστῶσα. Ὅταν δὲ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν εἶναι διδασκώμεθα καὶ γεννηθέντα, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ ποιηθέντα, μὴ καταπίπτωμεν ἐπὶ τὰς σωματικὰς τῶν παθῶν ἐννοίας. Οὐ γὰρ ἐμερίσθη ἡ οὐσία ἀπὸ Πατρὸς εἰς Υἱόν, οὐδὲ ῥυεῖσα ἐγέννησεν, οὐδὲ προβαλοῦσα, ὡς τὰ φυτὰ τοὺς καρπούς, ἀλλ' ἄρρητος καὶ ἀνεπινόητος λογισμοῖς ἀνθρώπων τῆς θείας γεννήσεως ὁ τρόπος. Ταπεινῆς γὰρ τῷ ὄντι καὶ σαρκίνης ἐστὶ διανοίας τοῖς φθαρτοῖς καὶ προσκαίροις ἀφομοιοῦν τὰ ἀΐδια καὶ οἴεσθαι ὅτι, ὡς τὰ σωματικά, οὕτω γεννᾷ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ὁμοίως, δέον ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων λαμβάνειν τὰς ἀφορμὰς πρὸς τὴν εὐσέβειαν, ὅτι, ἐπειδὴ τὰ θνητὰ οὕτως, ὁ Ἀθάνατος οὐχ οὕτως. Οὔτε οὖν ἀρνεῖσθαι δεῖ τὴν θείαν γέννησιν, οὔτε σωματικαῖς ἐννοίαις καταρρυποῦν ἑαυτοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν.

[4] Τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον Πατρὶ μὲν καὶ Υἱῷ συναριθμεῖται, διὸ καὶ ὑπὲρ τὴν κτίσιν ἐστί, τέτακται δὲ ὡς ἐν Εὐαγγελίῳ δεδιδάγμεθα παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου εἰπόντος: »Πορευθέντες βαπτίζετε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος.« Ὁ δὲ προτιθεὶς Υἱοῦ ἢ πρεσβύτερον λέγων Πατρός, οὗτος ἀνθίσταται μὲν τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ διαταγῇ, ἀλλότριος δὲ τῆς ὑγιαινούσης πίστεως, μὴ ὃν παρέλαβε τρόπον δοξολογίας φυλάττων, ἀλλ' ἑαυτῷ καινοφωνίαν εἰς ἀρέσκειαν ἀνθρώπων ἐπινοῶν. Εἰ γὰρ ἀνώτερον Θεοῦ, οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Γέγραπται γάρ: »Τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ.« Εἰ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, πῶς πρεσβύτερόν ἐστι τοῦ ἐξ οὗ ἐστι; Τίς δὲ καὶ ἡ παράνοια, ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ ἀγεννήτου, ἄλλο τι λέγειν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου ἀνώτερον; Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς πρότερον: οὐδὲν γὰρ μέσον Υἱοῦ καὶ Πατρός. Εἰ δὲ μή ἐστιν ἐκ Θεοῦ, διὰ Χριστοῦ δέ ἐστιν, οὐδέ ἐστι τὸ παράπαν. Ὥστε ἡ περὶ τὴν τάξιν καινοτομία αὐτῆς τῆς ὑπάρξεως ἀθέτησιν ἔχει καὶ ὅλης τῆς πίστεώς ἐστιν ἄρνησις. Ὁμοίως οὖν ἐστιν ἀσεβὲς καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν κτίσιν καταγαγεῖν καὶ ὑπερτιθέναι αὐτὸ Υἱοῦ ἢ Πατρός, ἢ κατὰ τὸν χρόνον, ἢ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν. Ἃ μὲν οὖν ἤκουσα ἐπιζητεῖσθαι παρὰ τῆς εὐλαβείας ὑμῶν, ταῦτά ἐστιν: ἐὰν δὲ δῷ ὁ Κύριος καὶ εἰς ταὐτὸν ἡμᾶς ἀλλήλοις γενέσθαι, τάχα ἄν τι καὶ περὶ τούτων πλέον εἴποιμεν καὶ αὐτοὶ δ' ἂν περὶ ὧν ἐπιζητοῦμεν εὕροιμέν τινα παρ' ὑμῶν πληροφορίαν.