Basil of Caesarea, De Spiritu Sancto

21. “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; 74 John xiv. 9. not the express image, nor yet the form, for the divine nature does not admit of combination; but the goodness of the will, which, being concurrent with the essence, is beheld as like and equal, or rather the same, in the Father as in the Son. 75 The argument appears to be not that Christ is not the “express image,” or impress of the Father, as He is described in Heb. i. 3, or form, as in Phil. ii. 6, but that this is not the sense in which our Lord’s words in St. John xiv. 9, must be understood to describe “seeing the Father.” Χαρακτὴρ and μορφὴ are equivalent to ἡ θεία φύσις, and μορφή is used by St. Basil as it is used by St. Paul,—coinciding with, if not following, the usage of the older Greek philosophy,—to mean essential attributes which the Divine Word had before the incarnation (cf. Eustathius in Theod. Dial. II. [Wace and Schaff Ed., p. 203]; “the express image made man,”—ὁ τῷ πνεύματι σωματοποιηθεὶς ἄνθρωπος χαρακτήρ.) The divine nature does not admit of combination, in the sense of confusion (cf. the protests of Theodoret in his Dialogues against the confusion of the Godhead and manhood in the Christ), with the human nature in our Lord, and remains invisible. On the word χαρακτήρvide Suicer, and on μορφή Archbp. Trench’s New Testament Synonyms and Bp. Lightfoot on Philippians ii. 6.

What then is meant by “became subject”? 76 Phil. ii. 8. What by “delivered him up for us all”? 77 Rom. viii. 32. It is meant that the Son has it of the Father that He works in goodness on behalf of men. But you must hear too the words, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law;” 78 Gal. iii. 13. and “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” 79 Rom. v. 8.

Give careful heed, too, to the words of the Lord, and note how, whenever He instructs us about His Father, He is in the habit of using terms of personal authority, saying, “I will; be thou clean;” 80 Matt. viii. 3. and “Peace, be still;” 81 Mark iv. 39. and “But I say unto you;” 82 Matt. v. 22, etc. and “Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee;” 83 Mark ix. 25. and all other expressions of the same kind, in order that by these we may recognise our Master and Maker, and by the former may be taught the Father of our Master and Creator. 84 There is a difficulty in following the argument in the foregoing quotations. F. Combefis, the French Dominican editor of Basil, would boldly interpose a “not,” and read ‘whenever he does not instruct us concerning the Father.’ But there is no ms. authority for this violent remedy. The Benedictine Editors say all is plain if we render “postquam nos de patre erudivit.” But the Greek will not admit of this. Thus on all sides is demonstrated the true doctrine that the fact that the Father creates through the Son neither constitutes the creation of the Father imperfect nor exhibits the active energy of the Son as feeble, but indicates the unity of the will; so the expression “through whom” contains a confession of an antecedent Cause, and is not adopted in objection to the efficient Cause.

74 John xiv. 9.

75 The argument appears to be not that Christ is not the “express image,” or impress of the Father, as He is described in Heb. i. 3, or form, as in Phil. ii. 6, but that this is not the sense in which our Lord’s words in St. John xiv. 9, must be understood to describe “seeing the Father.” Χαρακτὴρ and μορφὴ are equivalent to ἡ θεία φύσις, and μορφή is used by St. Basil as it is used by St. Paul,—coinciding with, if not following, the usage of the older Greek philosophy,—to mean essential attributes which the Divine Word had before the incarnation (cf. Eustathius in Theod. Dial. II. [Wace and Schaff Ed., p. 203]; “the express image made man,”—ὁ τῷ πνεύματι σωματοποιηθεὶς ἄνθρωπος χαρακτήρ.) The divine nature does not admit of combination, in the sense of confusion (cf. the protests of Theodoret in his Dialogues against the confusion of the Godhead and manhood in the Christ), with the human nature in our Lord, and remains invisible. On the word χαρακτήρvide Suicer, and on μορφή Archbp. Trench’s New Testament Synonyms and Bp. Lightfoot on Philippians ii. 6.

76 Phil. ii. 8.

77 Rom. viii. 32.

78 Gal. iii. 13.

79 Rom. v. 8.

80 Matt. viii. 3.

81 Mark iv. 39.

82 Matt. v. 22, etc.

83 Mark ix. 25.

84 There is a difficulty in following the argument in the foregoing quotations. F. Combefis, the French Dominican editor of Basil, would boldly interpose a “not,” and read ‘whenever he does not instruct us concerning the Father.’ But there is no ms. authority for this violent remedy. The Benedictine Editors say all is plain if we render “postquam nos de patre erudivit.” But the Greek will not admit of this.

[21] «Ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμέ, ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα», οὐ τὸν χαρακτῆρα, οὐδὲ τὴν μορφήν: καθαρὰ γὰρ συνθέσεως ἡ θεία φύσις: ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθὸν τοῦ θελήματος, ὅπερ σύνδρομον ὂν τῇ οὐσίᾳ, ὅμοιον καὶ ἴσον, μᾶλλον δὲ ταὐτὸν ἐν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ θεωρεῖται. Τί οὖν τό: «Γενόμενος ὑπήκοος»; καὶ τό: «Ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων παρέδωκεν αὐτόν»; Ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς τῷ Υἱῷ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων ἐνεργῆσαι κατ' ἀγαθότητα. Σὺ δὲ κἀκείνων ἄκουε ὅτι «Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου», καὶ ὅτι «Ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν, Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανε». Πρόσεχε δὲ ἀκριβῶς καὶ ταῖς φωναῖς τοῦ Κυρίου, ὅτι ὅταν ἡμᾶς περὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπαιδεύσῃ, οἶδε ταῖς αὐθεντικαῖς καὶ δεσποτικαῖς κεχρῆσθαι φωναῖς, λέγων: «Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι», καὶ «Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο», καὶ «Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν», καὶ τὸ «Ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν δαιμόνιον, ἐγώ σοι ἐπιτάσσω», καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα: ἵνα διὰ τούτων μὲν τὸν Δεσπότην ἡμῶν καὶ ποιητὴν γνωρίσωμεν, δι' ἐκείνων δὲ τὸν Πατέρα τοῦ Δεσπότου ἡμῶν καὶ ποιητοῦ διδαχθῶμεν. Οὕτω πανταχόθεν ὁ λόγος ἀληθὴς ἐπιδείκνυται ὅτι τὸ διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ δημιουργεῖν τὸν Πατέρα, οὔτε ἀτελῆ τοῦ Πατρὸς τὴν δημιουργίαν συνίστησιν, οὔτε ἄτονον τοῦ Υἱοῦ παραδηλοῖ τὴν ἐνέργειαν: ἀλλὰ τὸ ἡνωμένον τοῦ θελήματος παριστᾷ. Ὥστε ἡ δι' οὗ φωνὴ ὁμολογίαν τῆς προκαταρκτικῆς αἰτίας ἔχει, οὐκ ἐπὶ κατηγορίᾳ τοῦ ποιητικοῦ αἰτίου παραλαμβάνεται.