Basil of Caesarea on the Unity of the Godhead

Posted by John

A rough translation from Homily 24.3f (“Against the Sabellians, and Arius, and the Anomoeans”)

The battle fought against us from both sides is such, but what is the truth? Don’t fear the confession of the persons, but say Father, and say Son also; and don’t give two names to one thing, but from the naming of each learn the proper signification. For it is terrible arrogance not to receive the teachings of the Lord, who clearly distinguishes for us the difference of the persons. He says, “For if I go away, I will ask the Father, and he will send you another Comforter.” So then, the one who asks is the Son, and the one asked is the Father, and the one sent the Comforter. Are you not manifestly shameless then, you who hear “I” about the Son, “he” about the Father, and “another” about the Holy Spirit, but who blend everything, and mix everything up, and ascribe all the names to one thing? Don’t, however, seize as plunder for impiety the division of the persons, either. For even if there are two in number, still they are not separated in nature; and the one who says “two” doesn’t introduce any alienation. There is one God, because there is even one Father.* But the Son is also God, and there aren’t two gods, because the Son has identity with the Father. For I don’t behold one divinity in the Father and another in the Son; nor is the former one nature, the latter another. Therefore, in order that the uniqueness of the persons might be clear to you, count the Father separately and the Son separately. But lest you depart into polytheism, confess the essence of both to be one. In this way both the Sabellian falls, and the Anomoean is crushed.

But when I say one essence, don’t think of two divided from one, but think of the Son subsisting from the Father as source, not of Father and Son emerging from one superior essence. For we don’t speak of brothers, but we confess Father and Son. And the essence is the same, since the Son is from the Father: he wasn’t made by his command, but was begotten from his nature; and he wasn’t divided off from the Father, but has shone forth perfectly from him who remains perfect. And you who either lay hold of things imperfectly spoken, or who stand around to abuse us, and don’t seek to gain some benefit from us, but look to seize upon something we speak–don’t you run around me and say, “He preaches two gods, he proclaims polytheism.” There are not two gods, for neither are there two fathers. It is the one who introduces two sources who preaches two gods. Such is Marcion, and anyone there may be who resembles him in impiety. And again, the one who says the Begotten is other in substance from Him who begat–he too says there are two gods, since he introduces polytheism through the dissimilarity of the essence. For if one divinity is unbegotten and one begotten, you are the one preaching polytheism: you say the Unbegotten is opposite to the Begotten, and you clearly also make the essences opposite, if unbegottenness is really the essence of the Father, and begottenness the essence of the Son. And so you say not only that there are two gods, but that they are fighting each other: and what is most terrible, you attribute the conflict not to deliberate willing, but to a separation by nature, which can never admit a peace agreement! But the true doctrine escapes the obstacles on each side. For the reason for unity is hardly destroyed where the source is one, and what is from it is one; and where the archetype is one, and the image one. Accordingly, the Son–who exists by generation from the Father, and who by nature reflects in himself the Father–he both, as his image, has exact similarity, and, as his offspring, preserves the same substance. For, someone who gazes upon the king’s image in the town square, and says that the man in the picture is king, doesn’t confess two kings, the image and the one whose image it is. And if he points to the one depicted in the image and says, “This is the king,” he doesn’t rob the prototype of the name of king. On the contrary, he affirms his honor by confessing this. For if the image is king, doubtless it is very fair that the one supplying the cause to the image should be king. But in this case, wood and wax and an artist’s skill make a perishable image, a copy of one who is perishable, and an artificial likeness of the one who is depicted; whereas in the other case, when you hear “image,” think of the “radiance of his glory.” But what is the radiance, and what is the glory? The Apostle himself immediately interpreted this when he added, “and the exact imprint of his person.” The “person” is thus the same as “the glory,” and the “exact imprint” is the same as “the radiance.” Therefore, the glory remains perfect and is in no respect diminished, while the radiance goes forth, being itself perfect. And thus the explanation of the image, when received in a way that befits God, presents to us the unity of the Godhead. For the one is in the other, the other in the one; for also, the one is such as the other is, the other such as the one is. The two are thus united, in that they do not differ, and the Son is not thought of as being of another form and foreign imprint. Again therefore I say: One and one, but the nature is indivisible and the perfection unceasing. God thus is one, because through both one form is seen, which is shown forth in its completeness in both.

* I have repunctuated this line, which in the Patrologia Graeca is printed thus: “Εις Θεος, οτι και Πατηρ · εις Θεος δε και ο Υιος”

Advertisement