Thoughts

At first glance, it may seem surprising that Basil’s contribution to dealing with the contemporary conditions of Church, which he describes by the analogy of a terrible naval battle – all blood, confusion, mutiny and megalomania (76), devotes such a significant space to the study of prepositions along with a significant place also given to a sort of ‘divine arithmetic’ in his analysis of the Trinity itself. So there are prepositions and numbers, but actually they arise in the context of serious doctrinal and pastoral concerns in the way we express ourselves when speaking of the Trinity. It is as vital now as it was then that we are both precise and comprehensive in our doctrinal statements and liturgical practice.

It is clear that Basil’s pastoral concern is a large part of the reason for his entering the debate raging about the place of the Holy Spirit. Basil says that those who refuse the preposition ‘with’, thereby saying the Son is subordinate to the Father and the Holy Spirit to the Son, “will not allow anyone else to remain ignorant of these matters, and so by their meddlesomeness have forfeited any pleas that the ignorant might have” (13). He would rather “pass by such blasphemy in silence. But I love the brethren, and our opponents’ stubbornness knows no bounds – so how can I possibly keep quiet?” (41).

Basil had himself been criticised for the doxologies used in his church – “Lately… we sometimes finish the doxology to God the Father with the form ‘Glory to the Father with the Son, together with the Holy Spirit,’ and at other times we use ‘Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit’” (3). Since “both doxologies are used by the faithful, and so we use both; we believe that either one ascribes perfect glory to the Spirit” (59), he sees it necessary to give “… clear teaching concerning the force underlying these prepositions” (3) in order to explain why both are correct though different, and the importance of maintaining both concepts in the Church and her worship.

In dealing with such confusion, it is vital that we have a proper understanding of what authority we should seek and how we should express ourselves, and Basil is clear about this: “Concerning the teachings of the Church, whether publically proclaimed (kerygma) or reserved to members of the household of faith (dogmata), we have received some from written sources, while others have been given to us secretly, though apostolic tradition. Both sources have equal force in true religion… If we attacked unwritten customs, claiming them to be of little importance, we would fatally mutilate the Gospel, no matter what our intentions” (66). He lists some of the many signs of the Church’s common life that would be lost if she were to abandon the unwritten traditions: the sign of the cross, facing East, the Eucharistic prayer, and so on. He also explains why some of our tradition is written and available to all, whereas other is passed on only within the Church. He writes, “reverence for the mysteries is best encouraged by silence. The uninitiated were not even allowed to be present at the mysteries; how could you expect these teachings to be paraded about in public documents?” (66). As we still say in the prayer as we approach communion, “I will not speak of the mystery to thy enemies.” Basil adds, “We have unwritten tradition so that the knowledge of dogma might not become neglected and scorned through familiarity” (66).

Basil’s reliance on the Scriptural kerygma is amply evidenced by his extensive use of Scriptural references throughout this work. Even when it comes to explaining his use of “the blessed men of old” (71) to support his teaching, he quotes 1 Cor 11:2 where Paul praises the Corinthians that they “maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” and 2 Thess 2:15 where he instructs the Thessalonians to “hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (71). Those who are not convinced by his florilegium as support for his argument would fall into the category of the ones who “clamour for written proofs and reject the unwritten testimony of the Fathers as worthless, proving themselves worse than debtors who refuse to pay what they owe when there is no written evidence of the loan” (25).

In addition to the Scriptural witness and the witness of the Fathers is the common experience of the churches, so Basil also explores “what kinds of ideas about the Spirit we hold in common, as well as those which we have gathered from the Scriptures, or received from the unwritten tradition of the Fathers” (22).

In the expression of all these ideas, whether in treatises or in worship, precision in language is paramount. “None of the words used to describe God should be passed over without exact examination” (1) and only “those who are idle in the pursuit of righteousness count theological terminology as secondary” (2); indeed, Jesus himself indicated just how significant is every jot and tittle (Mt 5:18). On the other hand, the contemporary “pestilence of a heresy” progressed by way of those who were “quibbling over prepositions” (4), showing how fine the line is between a careful study of the tradition and an over-definition of every little word to justify an argument. Basil himself is not happy about being drawn in to the quibbling over prepositions, but sees the necessity to clarify the errors in interpretation his opponents are making, for ‘love of the brethren’.

In addition to his careful use of language in demonstrating these things, Basil also shows why he is remembered as a liturgist in the almost poetic beauty of his description of the Holy Spirit’s coming to us as we are cleansed of passions, his comforting and sanctifying us and showing us the true Image (22-23), and in the depth and clarity of his description of baptism (35-36) where “through the Holy Spirit comes our restoration to Paradise” (36).

In his theological explication of the Trinity, Basil rebukes those who forget the need to approach discussions about the very nature of God in appropriate humility: “They insult the dogmas pertaining to the divine nature by confining them within human categories” (51). In fact, the very clear demarcation between the life of God, divinity, on the one hand and all creation on the other is an essential assumption at the root of much of Basil’s argumentation.

First, he establishes the relation between the Father and the Son. “No interval could possibly divide the natural union of Father and Son” (14) – as has been clearly established since the defeat of the Arians, the begetting of the Son does not imply that ‘there was when he was not’. In other words, referring to Jn 1:1, he writes that “thought cannot reach beyond was, or the imagination beginning”.

Next he demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is clearly on the divine side of this distinction. A strong support for this is found in the baptismal formula (24) which clearly associates the Holy Spirit together with the Father and Son in the very act of bringing a person into the life of the Church. The fact that the Scripture occasionally mentions baptism ‘in Christ’ without mentioning the formula (e.g. Gal 3:27) is irrelevant, as there are also mentions of baptism in the Holy Spirit without mentioning even Christ (e.g. 1 Cor 12:13). Salvation, therefore, which comes through baptism, is from Father, Son and Holy Spirit together (26). He identifies many Scriptural texts implicitly identifying the Holy Spirit with God (37). That the carnal cannot perceive either the Father (Jn 17:25) or the Son (Jn 14:19) or the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:17) is a further demonstration of the Holy Spirit’s divinity (53). The Holy Spirit’s role in everything from the creation of the angels and in their relating to God (38), through the whole dispensation (39), and to the eschaton and judgement (40) shows that the Holy Spirit is not circumscribed (Ps 139:7 – “Where shall I go from Thy Spirit or where shall I flee from Thy presence?”) and is “present everywhere”, unlike other bodiless powers (54). In the face of all this evidence, who could not conclude that “the Spirit is described to be of God, not in the sense that all things are of God, but because he proceeds from the mouth of the Father” (46). So, although he is described as of God in a parallel way to the Son being Son of God, he “is not begotten like the Son”. “As the Paraclete He reflects the godness of the Paraclete (the Father) who sent Him, and His own dignity reveals the majesty of Him from Whom He proceeded.”

In fact, the divinity of the Holy Spirit is essential to the doctrine of the Trinity, since to deny any one of the Trinity is to lose all. One can not even say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3 quoted in 27).

Having demonstrated that the Holy Spirit is divine and proceeds from the Father in a way parallel to the begetting of the Son rather than in an act of creation, Basil looks more closely at the relation of Father and Son in the life of the Trinity (44-47) in order to see where the Holy Spirit fits in:

“If we count, we do not add, increasing from one to many. We do not say, ‘one, two, three,’ or ‘first, second, and third.’ God says, ‘I am the first and I am the last.’ (Is 44:6) We have never to this present day heard of a second God. We worship God from God, confessing the unity of the persons, while maintaining the unity of the Monarchy… The Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; what the Father is, the Son is likewise and vice-versa – such is the unity. As unique Persons they are one and one; as sharing a common nature, both are one. How does one and one not equal two Gods? Because we speak of the emperor, and the emperor’s image – but not two emperors… We do not send up glories to God, but glory; the honour given the image passes to the prototype. The image of the emperor is an image by imitation, but the Son is a natural image… since the divine nature is not composed of parts, union of the persons is accomplished by partaking of the whole. The Holy Spirit is one, and we speak of Him as unique, since through the one Son He is joined to the Father. He completes the all-praised and blessed Trinity. He is not ranked with the plurality of creation, but is described in the singular; this is sufficient evidence of His intimacy with the Father and the Son. He is not one of many but one only…” (45)

Since the Arian heresy has been put down, it has already been made quite clear there is no second God. It is clear that for Basil, the one God is the Father (as has been clear from the beginning – “we sometimes finish the doxology to God the Father with the form ‘Glory to the Father with the Son, together with the Holy Spirit’”[1] (3) – for Basil, to speak of God is not to speak of some conceptual form of divinity or shared substance in the Trinity). The monarchy of God the Father does not in any way relativise the divinity of the Son: the Son is God because he is Son of God, but there is One God. Lossky casts doubt even on the usual reduction of Basil’s theology of the Trinity to ‘three hypostases, one essence’ by pointing out that the hypostases, “strictly speaking, are not ‘three’ but ‘Tri-Unity’“[2]. There is One God the Father, One only-begotten, One Holy Spirit. The Scriptures, after all, do not count ‘members’ of the Trinity for us, but only ever use names. Lossky points out the impossibility of a definition for ‘hypostasis’ – since it refers only to what is distinct, the only common definition for ‘hypostasis’, he says, is the impossibility of a common definition.

The Father is always Father to the Son. The begetting is eternal and describes the relationship so that to contemplate the Son is to contemplate the Father – in fact, it is only through the Son that we can know the Father. We can truly know the Father this way because of the identity of “what the Father is” and what “the Son is” (45, cf. Jn. 14:10). The monarchy of God is preserved in the hypostases, and thus in worship too, “the honour given the Image passes to the prototype” (45) so one God the Father is worshipped properly in the Son and the Holy Spirit who are properly worshipped with him.

Thus Basil has shown how firmly established is the Holy Spirit as divinity in the Trinity, just as is the Son. Without ever saying that the Holy Spirit is ‘God’, Basil makes it clear he cannot be anything else.

In fact, given this exposition of the Trinity, it is clear why the Holy Spirit’s role is essential for us to know Christ, just as Christ’s role is essential in making the Father known to us (cf. Mt. 11:27 and 1 Cor. 12:3). “The way to divine knowledge ascends from one Spirit through the one Son to the one Father. Likewise, natural goodness, inherent holiness and royal dignity reaches from the Father through the Only-Begotten to the Spirit. Thus, we do not lose the true doctrine of one God by confessing the persons” (47). On the contrary, it is not a confession of the Son or the Holy Spirit as equal in the Trinity that leads to polytheism, but rather subordinationism, which would introduce lesser ‘gods’.

Thus there are two perspectives in considering the Trinity – a discussion of the internal relationship of the persons, and a discussion about how it appears to us. That is, it is only in the Holy Spirit that we can see Christ, and only through Christ that we can know the Father, but there is only ‘one’ glory to be given to the one God. As Basil puts it, “the best phrase when giving [the Son] glory is with whom and the most appropriate for giving thanks is through whom” –his majesty we see as shared with God the Father, but his works for us reunite us to God the Father (16). We can see that this is true also of the Holy Spirit: “Truly precise co-existence can only be predicated of things which are mutually inseparable. For example, we would say that heat exists in red-hot iron, but co-exists with fire” (63) and so when we refer to ‘rank’, we say with, whereas when we speak of his working of grace on recipients, we say in. “The preposition in expresses the relationship between ourselves and the Spirit, while with proclaims the communion of the Spirit with God” (68).

And hence Basil confirms his insistence that he will go on to use both the doxologies that are “used by the faithful” for “either one ascribes perfect glory to the Spirit” (59). That is the conclusion of a truly great theologian and teacher of the Church. Though a broadly-educated and learned man, his life did not bear much resemblance to the modern concept of an ‘academic’. As a bishop, his approach to this topic arose from a pastoral concern for his people. His clarity of mind in his doctrinal study inextricably integrated with the liturgical and experiential life of the Church, writing with a heavy reliance particularly on Scripture but also with support throughout the Tradition, he is able to say: “It is fitting that when we see Christ, the Brightness of God’s glory, it is always through the illumination of the Spirit. Through Christ the Image, may we be led to the Father, for He bears the seal of the Father’s very likeness” (64).

[1] (My italics.)

[2] Lossky: Image and Likeness, p113

Trackback URI | Comments RSS