THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY

EDITED BY
E. CAPPS, PH.D. LL.D. T. E. PAGE, litt.d.
W. H. D. ROUSE, LITT.D.

SAINT BASIL
THE LETTERS
SAINT BASIL
Arcir>rjy. o
:Pf G:^ri
THE LETTERS
WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY
ROY J. DEFERRARI, Ph.D.
OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OK AMERICA

IN FOUR VOLUMES
I

^
0-
'v/.\
.'T/

LONDON : WILLIAM HEINEMANN

NEW YORK : G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
MCMXXVI
 LETTER LI I

Constantinople in the simplicity of his lieart, but

that in no way had he been inclined to reject the
faith as set forth by the holy fathers at Nicaea/ nor
was he at heart any different from wliat lie had
been in the beginning when he had accepted it
nay, he added, he even prayed not to be separated
from the party of those blessed bishops, the three
hundred and eighteen, who announced that ])ious
doctrine to the world. We, accordingly, on this
reassurance, freed our heart of all condemnation,
and, as you yourself know, entered into fellowship
with him, and ceased to be offended.
Such were our relations with Dianius. And if
anyone says that he is privy to any lawless blasphemy
on our part against Dianius, let him not prattle in a
corner like a skive, but let him take his stand in the
open and refute me freely.

LETTER LII

To THE CaNONICAE.2

The great vexation caused me by a painful report

which resounded in my ears is balanced by the great
pleasure which the bishop, dearly beloved of God,
my brother Bosporius,^ gave us when he related
^ For the Council of Nicaea, cf. Introd. p. xxv.
2 Written at the beginning of the episcopate, about 370.
Canonicae were women of the early Church enrolled to
devote themselves to works of charit}'. Although not under
vows, they lived apart from men, usually in coenobium. Cf.
Letter CCLXXXVIII, where Basil is supposed to refuse to
consider marriage with them as legitimate. Tliere were also
Canonici; but marriage was commonly permitted to them.
3 Cf. Letter LI.

327
 LETTER LII

happier things about your religious life. For he

said— —
thanks be to God that all those stories which
were noised abroad were fabrications of men not
accurately aware of the truth concerning you. He
said further that he found current amongst you
unholy calumnies against us, such calumnies as
might come from men who do not expect on the
day of righteous retribution to render an account to
the Judge even for their idle speech.^ I therefore

gave thanks to the Lord, both that 1 myself have

been healed of the injurious charges against you
which, as it seems, I had accepted from slanderous
—
men and that you, as I hear, have laid aside those
false notions about me, on the strength of the
assurance you have received from my brother.
The opinions which Bosporius has on his own
account set forth accord completely with my own.
For we both have the same conception of the faith,
inasmuch as we are heirs of the same Fathers, those
who at Xicaea once gave out that great proclamation
of our religion. This has in all other respects been
wholly free from slanderous detraction; but the term
^''sameness of substance " ("Miomoousion "),2 which
has been grudgingly received by some, has as yet
not been accepted at all by others. These one
might justly blame, but, on the other hand, one
might consider them deserving of pardon. For
while their refusal to follow the Fathers, and to
count their declaration less authoritative than their
own opinion, calls for censure as teeming with
arrogance, yet, on the other hand, their regarding
with suspicion a doctrine with which others have

2 Cf. Introd. p. xxv.

329
 LETTER LI I

found fault does somehow seem to free them from

a portion of the blame. For in truth those who
convened to pass upon the case of Paul of Samosata ^
found fault with the word as not being clear. They
declared that the word " homoousion " suofrests
the idea both of substance and its derivatives, so
tiiat the substance which has been divided gives the
attribute of ''likeness of substance" to the parts
into which it has been divided. This idea, when
applied, for example, to bronze and to the coins made
from it, has a certain amount of reason in it but ;

when '' substance " is used with reference to God

the Father and God the Son, it is not considered
as anterior, nor yet as underlying both for either to
;

think or to express any such idea is worse than

sacrilege. For what could be older tlian the Un-
begotten ? By this blasphemy, faith in both Father
and Son is destroyed for things which derive their
;

existence from the same thing are brothers to one

another.-
And since even then there were those who said
that the Son was brought into being out of the non-
existent, to cut off this impiety also, the term "^ like-
ness of substance" ("homoousion") v.as added.
F'or the union of the Son with the Father has to do
with neither time nor space. And indeed the
preceding words show this to have been the inten-
tion of these men. For after saying that the Son
was light from light, and was born, though not
created, from the substance of the Father, they then
^ The two Antiochene synods of a.d. 264 and 269, to
enforce wliose decisions against Paul of Samosata recourse
was had to the pagan Aurelian.
^ A reductio ad absurdum. The doctrine of " Likeness of
Substance " was devised to get rid of this very thing.
 LETTER Lir

brought in also the doctrine of '' Hkeness of sub-

stance," thus intimatini; that ^vhatever idea of Hi:;ht
is attributed to the Father, tliis will equally a})ply to

the Son also. For true light in relation to true

light, by the very conception we have of light, will
have no variation. Since, therefore, the Father is
light without be<>innincr, and the Son is begotten
light, yet one is light and the other is light, they
rightly declared them "alike in substance," that
they might set forth the equal dignity of their
nature. For things which are brothers to one
another cannot be called "alike in substance," as
some have supposed ; on the contrary, when both
the cause and that which has its origin from that
cause are of the same nature, then they are called
"alike in substance."
This term also sets aright the error of Sabellius ^ ;

for it does away with the identity of })erson

(" hypostasis "), and introduces a perfect notion of
the persons of the Godhead. For nothing is itself
of like substance with itself, but one thing is of like
substance with another thing; consequently, the
term is agood one, and consistent with piety,
differentiating as it does the individuality of the
Persons, and at the same time setting forth the
invariability of their nature.
But when we learn that the Son is from the
substance of the Father, and begotten though not
created, let us not ftdl into the corporeal conception
of the process. For the substance in the Father was
not divided to form the Son, nor did it engender by
fluxion, or by putting forth shoots,- as plants put
forth their fruits ; on the contrary, the method of
divine generation is ineffable and inconceivable to

333
 LETTER LI I

the human mind. Indeed^ it is a truly low and

fleshly mind which likens invisible thin«jjs to those
perishable and temporal, and believes that just as
corporeal things beget, so too does God in like
manner but piety demands that we proceed on the
;

principle of opposites, and reason that, since mortal

things do thus, the immortal being does otherwise.
Therefore we should neither deny the divine
generation, nor with corporeal conceptions defile
our minds.
The Holy Spirit is reckoned along with the Father
and Son, wherefore He also is above creation and ;

the place assigned to Him is in accordance %vith the

doctrine which we have derived from the words of the
Lord^ in the Gospel: "Going baptize in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
But he who puts the Holy S})irit before the Son, or
declares Him to be older than the Father,sets himself
in opposition to God's commandment, and is a stranger
to the sound faith, since he does not preserve the
traditional form of the Doxology, but invents for
himself a new-fangled expression for the satisfaction
of men. For if the Spirit is anterior to God, He is
not from God. For it is written, " The Spirit of
God.'" 2 And if it is of God, how can it be older than
He of whom it is? And what folly it is, w^hen the
Unbegotten is one, to speak of something else as
anterior to the Unbegotten Nay, it is not prior to
!

nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of

the Son, and of the Hoh' (ihost."
^ Cf. 1 Cor. 2. 12. rifxels 5e ov rh irveC/xa tov
Koa/j-ov e\d-
^0/j.eu, aWa rh irveCfxa rh iK tov &£0v, vnh rov Qeov
'iva eldci)/j.ev to.

XapiffBivra T)ixTv. "Now we have received not the spirit of

this world, but tiie Spirit that is of God ; that we may know
the things that are given us from God."
335
 LETTER LI 1

the Only-begotten either^; for there is no space

between Son and Fatlier. And if the Spirit is not
of God, but is through Christ, He does not exist at
all. Consequently, any innovation in the position of
the Holy Spirit involves the abolition of His very
existence, and is equivalent to a denial of the whole
faith. It is therefore in like manner impious either
to degrade Him to the position of a creature, or to
raise Him above either Son or Father in either time
or position.
These are the matters into which I have heard
that your pious souls are making inquiry and if the ;

Lord grants that we shall meet one another, I may

have somewhat more to say on these questions, and
I myself may obtain light from you on the subjects
of my own inquiries.

LETTER LHI
To THE ChOREPISCOPI 2

The enormity of the matter about which I write

(wherefore it is generally suspected and discussed)
has filled my soul with grief yet hitherto the thing
;

has seemed to me incredible. So let what I write

1 Cf. Letter XXXYIII, p. 209, where Basil argues this
point.
* Written at the beginning of the episcopate, about 370.
The chorepiseopi were a grade of priests between the bishops
themselves and the ordinary priests or presbyters, i.e.
suffragan bishops. They were first appointed in the late
third century in Asia Minor, in order to give more direct
episcopal supervision to the remote parts of large dioceses.
They are first mentioned in the Councils of Ancyra and
Neo-Caesarea, a.d. Sli.
337
VOL. I. Z