204

The great Basil, writing these things to Terentius, "But if we must also briefly state our opinion, we will say this, that the relation which the general has to the particular, this the substance has to the hypostasis. For each of us both partakes of being by the general definition of substance, and by his own properties is such-and-such a one and such-and-such a one." And again the same, discoursing on such matters to Amphilochius, says these things: "Substance and hypostasis have this difference, which the general has to the particular. For instance, as the animal has to the particular man." And after other things: "But those who say that substance and hypostasis are the same, are forced to confess only that the persons are different." And again, teaching some canonical rule, he wrote explaining the meaning of homoousios: "This term also corrects the evil of Sabellius. For it does away with the identity of the hypostasis, and introduces the perfect conception of the persons; for a thing is not homoousios with itself, but one thing with another. So it is well and piously said, defining the particularity of the hypostases and presenting the unchangeableness of the nature." And again in the second to the Neocaesareans he teaches, saying: "For it is necessary to know that just as he who does not confess the commonality of the substance falls into polytheism, so he who does not grant the particularities of the hypostases is carried over into Judaism." And again in the writings which he had Eustathius the Armenian sign, he is seen writing explicitly. "It is therefore fitting to confess clearly that they believe according to the words set forth by our Fathers at Nicaea, and according to the meaning soundly conveyed by the words. For there are some who, even in this creed, corrupt the word of truth, and draw the sense of its words to their own will. In which Marcellus even dared, being impious towards the hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, and explaining him as a mere word, to pretend to have taken his principles from there, wrongly explaining the meaning of homoousios. And some from the impiety of Sabellius of Libya, supposing hypostasis and substance to be the same, draw from there the occasions for the construction of their own blasphemy, from its being written in the creed, 'But if anyone says that the Son of God is of another substance or hypostasis, him the holy and catholic Church anathematizes.' For they did not say substance and hypostasis are the same. For if the terms signified one and the same [meaning], what need was there of both? But it is clear that since some denied [that he is] of the (548) substance, and others said [he is] of some other hypostasis, they thus forbade both as foreign to the ecclesiastical mind. For where they declared their own mind, they said that the Son is of the substance of the Father, no longer adding 'of the hypostasis'. So that the one is set down for the refutation of the wicked opinion, while the other is a manifestation of the saving doctrine."

And in harmony with this Gregory, surnamed the Theologian, in his first theological oration is seen to say these things: "But when I speak of a middle course, I mean the truth; to which alone it is good to look, avoiding both the evil contraction and the more absurd division; so that our doctrine is neither contracted into one hypostasis, for fear of polytheism, leaving us with bare names, while supposing the same to be Father and Son and Holy Spirit." And a little after, again: "Since it is necessary both to maintain the one God and to confess the three hypostases, or three persons, and each with its own property. And one God would be maintained, according to my argument, by referring the Son and the Spirit to one cause, not by composition, nor by confusion; and the three hypostases, with no fusion or dissolution or confusion being conceived; lest the whole be destroyed, by means of which the one is revered more than is right. And according to one and the same

204

Τερεντίῳ τάδε γράφων ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος, " Εἰ δέ δεῖ καί ἡμᾶς ἐν βραχεῖ τό ἡμῖν δοκοῦν εἰπεῖν, ἐκεῖνο ἐροῦμεν, ὅτι ὅν ἔχει λόγον τό κοινόν πρός τό ἴδιον, τοῦτον ἔχει ἡ οὐσία πρός τήν ὑπόστασιν. Ἕκαστος γάρ ἡμῶν καί τῷ κοινῷ τῆς οὐσίας λόγῳ τοῦ εἶναι μετέχει, καί τοῖς περί αὐτόν ἰδιώμασιν ὁ δεῖνά ἐστι καί ὁ δεῖνα." Καί πάλιν ὁ αὐτός πρός Ἀμφιλόχιον περί τῶν τοιούτων διεξιών, τάδε φησίν· "Οὐσία δέ καί ὑπόστασις ταύτην ἔχει τήν διαφοράν, ἥν ἔχει τό κοινόν πρός τό καθέκαστον. Οἷον, ὡς ἔχει τό ζῶον πρός τόν δεῖνα ἄνθρωπον." Καί μεθ᾿ ἕτερα· "Οἱ δέ ταὐτόν λέγοντες οὐσίαν καί ὑπόστασιν, ἀναγκάζονται πρόσωπα μόνον ὁμολογεῖν διάφορα." Καί πάλιν κανονικήν τινα διδάσκων ἐπέστελλεν ἑρμηνεύων τήν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου διάνοιαν· "Αὕτη δέ ἡ φωνή, καί τοῦ Σαβελλίου κακόν ἐπανορθοῦται. Ἀναιρεῖ γάρ τήν ταυτότητα τῆς ὑποστάσεως, καί εἰσάγει τελείαν τῶν προσώπων τήν ἔννοιαν· οὐ γάρ αὐτό τί ἐστιν ὁμοούσιον ἑαυτῷ, ἀλλ᾿ ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ. Ὥστε καλῶς ἔχει, καί εὐσεβῶς, τῶν τε ὑποστάσεων τήν ἰδιότητα διορίζουσα, καί τῆς φύσεως τό ἀπαράλλακτον παριστῶσα." Καί πάλιν ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ πρός Νεοκαισαρεῖς διδάσκει φάσκων· "Καί γάρ εἰδέναι χρή, ὅτι ὥσπερ ὁ τό κοινόν τῆς οὐσίας μή ὁμολογῶν εἰς πολυθεΐαν ἐκπίπτει· οὕτως ὁ τά ἴδια τῶν ὑποστάσεων μή διδούς, εἰς τόν Ἰουδαϊσμόν ἀποφέρεται." Καί πάλιν ἐν οἷς Εὐστάθιον τόν Ἀρμένιον ὑπογράψαι πεποίηκε, διαῤῥήδην γράφων φαίνεται. "Προσήκει τοίνυν ἐναργῶς ὁμολογεῖν, ὅτι πιστεύουσι κατά τά ῥήματα τά ὑπό τῶν ἡμετέρων Πατέρων ἐκτεθέντα ἐν τῇ Νικαίᾳ, καί κατά τήν ὑγιῶς ὑπό τῶν ῥημάτων ἐμφερομένην διάνοιαν. Εἰσί γάρ τινες, οἵ καί ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ πίστει δολοῦντες τόν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας, καί πρός τό ἑαυτῶν βούλημα, τόν νοῦν τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ ῥημάτων ἕλκοντες. Ὅπου γε καί Μάρκελλος ἐτόλμησεν ἀσεβῶν εἰς τήν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καί ψιλόν αὐτόν ἐξηγούμενος λόγον, ἐκεῖθεν προφασίσασθαι τάς ἀρχάς εἰληφέναι, τοῦ ὁμοουσίου τήν διάνοιαν κακῶς ἐξηγούμενος. Καί τινες τῶν ἀπό τῆς δυσσεβείας τοῦ Λίβυος Σαβελλίου ὑπόστασιν καί οὐσίαν ταυτόν εἶναι ὑπολαμβάνοντες, ἐκεῖθεν ἕλκουσι τάς ἀφορμάς πρός τήν κατασκευήν τῆς ἑαυτῶν βλασφημίας, ἐκ τοῦ ἐγγεγράφθαι τῇ πίστει, Ἐάν δέ τις λέγῃ ἐξ ἑτέρας οὐσίας ἤ ὑποστάσεως τόν Υἱόν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦτον ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καί καθολική Ἐκκλησία. Οὐ γάρ ταυτόν εἶπον ἐκεῖνοι οὐσίαν καί ὑπόστασιν. Εἰ γάρ μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν ἐδήλουν [ἔννοιαν] αἱ φωναί, τίς χρεία ἦν ἑκατέρων ; Ἀλλά δῆλον, ὡς τῶν μέν ἀρνουμένων τό ἐκ τῆς (548) οὐσίας ἄλλων δέ λεγόντων ἐν ἄλλης τινός ὑποστάσεως· οὕτως ἀμφότερα ὡς ἀλλότρια τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ φρονήματος ἀπηγόρευσαν. Ἐπεί ὅπου γε τό ἑαυτῶν ἐδήλουν φρόνημα, εἶπον ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός εἶναι τόν Υἱόν, οὐκέτι προσθέντες τό, ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως. Ὥστε ἐκεῖνο μέν κεῖται ἐπ᾿ ἀναιρέσει τοῦ πονηροῦ φρονήματος· τοῦτο δέ φανέρωσιν ἔχει τοῦ σωτηρίου δόγματος."

Συνῳδά δέ τούτῳ καί Γρηγόριος ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος ἐν τῷ θεολογικῷ προτέρῳ λόγῳ τάδε φαίνεται φάσκων· "Μεσότητα δέ ὅτ᾿ ἄν εἴπω, τήν ἀλήθειαν λέγω· πρός ἥν βλέπειν, καλῶς ἔχει μόνον, καί τήν φαύλην συναίρεσιν παραιτουμένους , καί τήν ἀτοπωτέραν διαίρεσιν· ὡς μήτε εἰς μίαν ὑπόστασιν συναιρεθέντα τόν λόγον, δέει πολυθεΐας, ψιλά ἡμῖν καταλιπεῖν τά ὀνόματα, τόν αὐτόν Πατέρα καί Υἱόν καί ἅγιον Πνεῦμα ὑπολαμβάνουσι." Καί μετ᾿ ὀλίγα πάλιν· " Ἐπειδή χρή καί τόν ἕνα Θεόν τηρεῖν, καί τάς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ὁμολογεῖν· ἤγουν τριά πρόσωπα, καί ἑκάστην μετά τῆς ἰδιότητος. Τηροῖτο δ᾿ ἄν, ὡς ὁ ἐμός λόγος, εἷς μέν Θεόν, εἰς ἕν αἴτιον Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος ἀναφερομένων, οὐ συντιθεμένων, οὐδέ συναλειφομένων· αἱ δέ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, μηδεμιᾶς ἐπινοουμένης συναλοιφῆς ἤ ἀναλύσεως ἤ συγχύσεως· ἵνα μή τό πᾶν καταλυθῇ, δι᾿ ὧν τό ἕν σεμνύνεται πλέον, ἤ καλῶς ἔχει. Καί κατά τό ἕν καί ταὐτόν