sign in sign up
<<
Home , Basil of Caesarea, Didymus the Blind

CHAPTER THREE

BASIL OF

1. Liber de Spiritu sancto Prior to the Pneumatomachian controversy there existed in the no treatise which dealt satisfactorily with the subject of the . 1 Orthodox authors, however, were not slow in producing such treatises when the need arose in the latter half of the fourth century. Athanasius' ep. Serap. 1-4.7 is the first of these treatises. 2 Basil's Spir., although somewhat later chronologically, is at least as important a work as that of Athanasius. For, whereas Athanasius' of the Spirit was devel­ oped really only towards the end of his life, Basil's career can be described as a life-long preoccupation with the subject and person of the Holy Spirit, and Spiro is the culmination of that concern. 3 Also, despite the fact that Athanasius' pneumatology exercised a great influence over subsequent authors, such as and Basil himself, 4 it was

1 's discussion of the Spirit in prine. 1.3 (pp. 142-164; PG 11.l45A-155C) and 2.7 (pp. 326-334; PG 11.2l5C-2l8C) was actually the first treatise on the Holy Spirit by a Greek patristric author. However, it failed to provide a satisfactory pneumatology. See pp. 9-18. 2Edeltraut Staimer ["Die Schrift 'De Spiritu Sancto' von Didymus dem Blinden von Alexandrien" (Unpublished theological dissertation, Munich, 1960), pp. 118-133, 143, 172- 173] claims that Didymus' Spiro was probably written between 355 and 358, before Athanasius wrote his letters to Serapion. However, Hauschild ("Pneumatomachen", pp. 30- 34) and Heron ("Theologie", pp. 9-14) refute this claim. See also Heising, "Der Heilige Geist", p. 303, n. 181. 3 But, as with all great works, there was an immediate occasion which prompted the composition of Spir., namely the doxological dispute with regard to the Spirit which led to Amphilochius' request for a theological clarification of the issue. The circumstances of this dispute have been noted above and need not be repeated here. See pp. 43-45. 4 Laminski, Der Heilige Geist, pp. 172-176; Campbell, "Holy Spirit", pp. 438-439. On Basil's use of Athanasius' letters to Serapion, especially ep. Serap. 1, see Benoit Pruche, trans., Basile de Cesaree: Traite du -Esprit (Sources Chretiennes, no. 17; Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1945), pp. 87-94 (hereafter cited as Traite). Cf. Heising "Der Heilige Geist", pp. 289-290. Behind Basil's use of these letters is his belief that the Egyptian was guided by the Spirit to a greater extent than any of his contemporaries rep. 69.1 (I, 162.26-28; PG 32. 429C-432A)]. It is therefore surprising to find no mention of Athanasius in Spiro 29.72-74 (pp. 139.19-147.5; PG 32.201B-208C) where Basil marshals support from such authors as Dionysius of , , Origen, Julius Africanus and for his use of the preposition cruv in the doxological affirmation about the Holy Spirit. J. Coman ["La Demonstration dans Ie traite Sur Ie Saint Esprit de saint Basile Ie Grand", SP, IX (1966), 200] suggests that the omission of Athanasius' name stems from the fact that the Alexandrian was detested by the . To spare his adversaries, Basil passed over in silence the name of the orthodox bishop. If this is the case, it shows once 105

Basil's theology of the Spirit which, partly through the mediation of Gregory of , was decisive in the expansion of the third article of the at the Council of in 381.5 Basil's treatise can be divided into five major sections. Chapters 1 and 30 are, as Dorries rightly remarks, much more than the framework into which the rest of the treatise is fitted. 6 Chapter 1 indicates those for whom the work is intended: Amphilochius of !conium 7 and others who are likeminded in their zealous, yet discreet, concern for the truth. Chapter 30 gives the for this: the situation of the Church is such that even the truth is used by some as an occasion for a new controversy. 8 At the end of Spiro 1, Basil refers to the liturgical question about the conglorification of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son which was raised at the feast of the Eupsychius and which provided the immediate occasion for the composition of the treatise. 9 His Pneumatomachian opponents had questioned the propriety of using the phrase "together with the Holy Spirit" in the doxology, since, for them, the Spirit's nature is radically different from that of the Father and the Son. But the section which follows, Spiro 2-8, an examination of the different prepositions which Scripture uses with regard to the members of the Godhead, seems to refute the Anomoeans rather than the more Basil's basically irenic nature. On Basil's relationship with Athanasius, see also Reilly, Imperium, pp. 77-85. 5 See Dorries, De Spiritu Sancto, pp. 174-176; idem, "Basilius", pp. 141-142, 143; Staats, "Basilianische Verherrlichung", pp. 238-239. On the key role played by in the expansion of the third article, see pp. 199-201. 6 De Spiritu Sancto, p. 44. 7 On Amphilochius, see pp. 44, 182. • pp. 150.1-157.11: PG 32.209D-217C. For DlIrries (De Spiritu Sancto, pp. 44-46,121- 128, 159-161; "Basil ius" ,pp. 126-130), Spiro was written specifically for a circle of among whom Amphilochius was prominent. These believers, engaged in a task of becoming "spiritual men" (:JtvEullunlCoi), will be prudent and discreet in their discussion of the question of the Holy Spirit. They will not profane Basil's work by rashly displaying it for all to see. Although Pruche ["Autour du Traite sur Ie Saint-Esprit de saint Basile de Cesaree", RSR, LII (1964), 216-217, 223-231; Saint-Esprit, pp. 89-93,117-131) objects vigorously to the characterization of Spiro as a "monastic" work, he does admit that Basil never intended his treatise on the Spirit to be a public work ("Autour du Traite", p. 225). Pruche disagrees with Dorries when he argues that Spir. was written for all who were baptized, and specifically for the who were in the front lines of the struggle against the Pneumatomachi. Yet, see the conciliatory statement of Gribomont ("Intransigence", p. 129): "It would certainly be wrong to oppose in too simplistic away, especially at this perk,d and in this milieu, monachism and Christian life. Dorries himself has perhaps tended to exaggerate this opposition or this distinction. In an age when infant baptism was but scarcely practised, monastic initiation was confused with the baptismal option, as was the case with Basil himself. The milieu in which his theology was elaborated was typically episcopal but Basil, Eustathius, and their friends behaved with an evangelical radicalism, which closely corre­ sponds to what will later be called monachism." 9 See pp. 43-45