Basil of Caesarea, De Spiritu Sancto

24. But we must proceed to attack our opponents, in the endeavour to confute those “oppositions” advanced against us which are derived from “knowledge falsely so-called.” 1 1 Tim. vi. 20. The intellectual championship of Basil was chiefly asserted in the vindication of the consubstantiality of the Spirit, against the Arians and Semi-Arians, of whom Euonomius and Macedonius were leaders, the latter giving his name to the party who were unsound on the third Person of the Trinity, and were Macedonians as well as Pneumatomachi. But even among the maintainers of the Nicene confession there was much less clear apprehension of the nature and work of the Spirit than of the Son. Even so late as 380, the year after St. Basil’s death, Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. xxxi. de Spiritu Sancto, Cap. 5, wrote “of the wise on our side some held it to be an energy, some a creature, some God. Others, from respect, they say, to Holy Scripture, which lays down no law on the subject, neither worship nor dishonour the Holy Spirit.” cf. Schaff’s Hist. of Christian Ch. III. Period, Sec. 128. In Letter cxxv. of St. Basil will be found a summary of the heresies with which he credited the Arians, submitted to Eusthathius of Sebaste in 373, shortly before the composition of the present treatise for Amphilochius.

It is not permissible, they assert, for the Holy Spirit to be ranked with the Father and Son, on account of the difference of His nature and the inferiority of His dignity. Against them it is right to reply in the words of the apostles, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” 2 Acts v. 29.

For if our Lord, when enjoining the baptism of salvation, charged His disciples to baptize all nations in the name “of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” 3 Matt. xxviii. 19. not disdaining fellowship with Him, and these men allege that we must not rank Him with the Father and the Son, is it not clear that they openly withstand the commandment of God? If they deny that coordination of this kind is declaratory of any fellowship and conjunction, let them tell us why it behoves us to hold this opinion, and what more intimate mode of conjunction 4 The word used is συνάφεια, a crucial word in the controversy concerning the union of the divine and human natures in our Lord, cf. the third Anathema of Cyril against Nestorius and the use of this word, and Theodoret’s counter statement (Theod. pp. 25, 27). Theodore of Mopsuestia had preferred συνάφεια to ἕνωσις; Andrew of Samosata saw no difference between them. Athanasius (de Sent. Dionys. § 17) employs it for the mutual relationship of the Persons in the Holy Trinity: “προκαταρκτικὸν γάρ ἐστι τῆς συναφείας τὸ ὄνομα.” they have.

If the Lord did not indeed conjoin the Spirit with the Father and Himself in baptism, do not 5 μηδέ. The note of the Ben. Eds. is, “this reading, followed by Erasmus, stirs the wrath of Combefis, who would read, as is found in four mss., τότε ἡμῖν, ‘then let them lay the blame on us.’ But he is quite unfair to Erasmus, who has more clearly apprehended the drift of the argument. Basil brings his opponents to the dilemma that the words ‘In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ either do or do not assert a conjunction with the Father and the Son. If not, Basil ought not to be found fault with on the score of ‘conjunction,’ for he abides by the words of Scripture, and conjunction no more follows from his words than from those of our Lord. If they do, he cannot be found fault with for following the words of Scripture. The attentive reader will see this to be the meaning of Basil, and the received reading ought to be retained.” let them lay the blame of conjunction upon us, for we neither hold nor say anything different. If on the contrary the Spirit is there conjoined with the Father and the Son, and no one is so shameless as to say anything else, then let them not lay blame on us for following the words of Scripture.

1 1 Tim. vi. 20. The intellectual championship of Basil was chiefly asserted in the vindication of the consubstantiality of the Spirit, against the Arians and Semi-Arians, of whom Euonomius and Macedonius were leaders, the latter giving his name to the party who were unsound on the third Person of the Trinity, and were Macedonians as well as Pneumatomachi. But even among the maintainers of the Nicene confession there was much less clear apprehension of the nature and work of the Spirit than of the Son. Even so late as 380, the year after St. Basil’s death, Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. xxxi. de Spiritu Sancto, Cap. 5, wrote “of the wise on our side some held it to be an energy, some a creature, some God. Others, from respect, they say, to Holy Scripture, which lays down no law on the subject, neither worship nor dishonour the Holy Spirit.” cf. Schaff’s Hist. of Christian Ch. III. Period, Sec. 128. In Letter cxxv. of St. Basil will be found a summary of the heresies with which he credited the Arians, submitted to Eusthathius of Sebaste in 373, shortly before the composition of the present treatise for Amphilochius.

2 Acts v. 29.

3 Matt. xxviii. 19.

4 The word used is συνάφεια, a crucial word in the controversy concerning the union of the divine and human natures in our Lord, cf. the third Anathema of Cyril against Nestorius and the use of this word, and Theodoret’s counter statement (Theod. pp. 25, 27). Theodore of Mopsuestia had preferred συνάφεια to ἕνωσις; Andrew of Samosata saw no difference between them. Athanasius (de Sent. Dionys. § 17) employs it for the mutual relationship of the Persons in the Holy Trinity: “προκαταρκτικὸν γάρ ἐστι τῆς συναφείας τὸ ὄνομα.”

5 μηδέ. The note of the Ben. Eds. is, “this reading, followed by Erasmus, stirs the wrath of Combefis, who would read, as is found in four mss., τότε ἡμῖν, ‘then let them lay the blame on us.’ But he is quite unfair to Erasmus, who has more clearly apprehended the drift of the argument. Basil brings his opponents to the dilemma that the words ‘In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ either do or do not assert a conjunction with the Father and the Son. If not, Basil ought not to be found fault with on the score of ‘conjunction,’ for he abides by the words of Scripture, and conjunction no more follows from his words than from those of our Lord. If they do, he cannot be found fault with for following the words of Scripture. The attentive reader will see this to be the meaning of Basil, and the received reading ought to be retained.”

[24] Οὐ χρή, φασί, Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συντετάχθαι τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, διά τε τὸ τῆς φύσεως ἀλλότριον καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀξίας καταδεές. Πρὸς οὓς δίκαιον τὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων φωνὴν ἀποκρίνασθαι, ὅτι «Πειθαρχεῖν Θεῷ δεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀνθρώποις». Εἰ γὰρ ὁ μὲν Κύριος σαφῶς ἐν τῇ παραδόσει τοῦ σωτηρίου βαπτίσματος προσέταξε τοῖς μαθηταῖς βαπτίζειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη «εἰς ὄνομα Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος», οὐκ ἀπαξιῶν τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸ κοινωνίαν, οὗτοι δὲ μὴ χρῆναι αὐτὸ Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συντάσσειν λέγουσι: πῶς οὐχὶ τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ διαταγῇ προδήλως ἀνθίστανται; Εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ εἶναί φασι τὴν τοιαύτην σύνταξιν κοινωνίας τινὸς καὶ συναφείας δηλωτικήν, εἰπάτωσαν τί μὲν νομίζειν τοῦτο προσήκει, τίνα δὲ ἕτερον συναφείας τρόπον οἰκειότερον ἔχουσι. Καίτοιγε εἰ μὴ συνῆψεν ὁ Κύριος ἑαυτῷ καὶ τῷ Πατρὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα κατὰ τὸ βάπτισμα, μηδὲ ἡμῖν τὴν συνάφειαν ἐγκαλείτωσαν. Οὐδὲν γὰρ ἡμεῖς ἀλλοιότερον οὔτε φρονοῦμεν, οὔτε φθεγγόμεθα. Εἰ δὲ συνῆπται ἐκεῖ τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ Υἱῷ, καὶ οὐδεὶς οὕτως ἀναιδὴς ὥστε ἄλλο τι φῆσαι, μηδ' οὕτως ἡμῖν ἐγκαλείτωσαν, εἰ τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἀκολουθοῦμεν.