Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Series 2 - The Still Small ...

imity, if not of questionable orthodoxy, from men who might have known him better. On
September 7th, probably in 371, 160 was held the festival of St. Eupsychius. Basil preached
the sermon. Among the hearers were many detractors. 161 A few days after the festival there
was a dinner-party at Nazianzus, at which Gregory was present, with several persons of
distinction, friends of Basil. Of the party was a certain unnamed guest, of religious dress
and reputation, who claimed a character for philosophy, and said some very hard things
against Basil. He had heard the archbishop at the festival preach admirably on the Father
and the Son, but the Spirit, he alleged, Basil defamed. 162 While Gregory boldly called the
Spirit God, Basil, from poor motives, refrained from any clear and distinct enunciation of
the divinity of the Third Person. The unfavourable view of Basil was the popular one at the
dinner-table, and Gregory was annoyed at not being able to convince the party that, while
his own utterances were of comparatively little importance, Basil had to weigh every word,
and to avoid, if possible, the banishment which was hanging over his head. It was better to
use a wise “economy” 163 in preaching the truth than so to proclaim it as to ensure the extinction
of the light of true religion. Basil 164 shewed some natural distress and astonishment
on hearing that attacks against him were readily received. 165
160 Maran, Vit. Bas. xviii. 4.
161 Greg. Naz., Ep. lviii. Ep. lxxi.
162 παρασύρειν. Ib.
163 οἰκονομηθῆναι.
164 Ep. lxxi.
Basil as Archbishop.
165 Mr. C.F.H. Johnston (The Book of St. Basil the Great on the Holy Spirit), in noting that St. Basil in the De
Sp. Scto. refrained from directly using the term Θεός of the Holy Ghost, remarks that he also avoided the use of
the term ὁμοούσιος of the Son, “in accordance with his own opinion expressed in Ep. ix.” In Ep. ix., however,
he rather gives his reasons for preferring the homoousion. The epitome of the essay of C. G. Wuilcknis (Leipsig,
1724) on the economy or reserve of St. Basil, appended by Mr. Johnston, is a valuable and interesting summary
of the best defence which can be made for such reticence. It is truly pointed out that the only possible motive
in Basil’s case was the desire of serving God, for no one could suspect or accuse him of ambition, fear, or covet-
ousness. And if there was an avoidance of a particular phrase, there was no paltering with doctrine. As Dr.
Swete (Doctrine of the H. S., p. 64) puts it: “He knew that the opponents of the Spirit’s Deity were watching their
opportunity. Had the actual name of God been used in reference to the Third Person of the Trinity, they would
have risen, and, on the plea of resisting blasphemy, expelled St. Basil from his see, which would then have been
immediately filled by a Macedonian prelate. In private conversation with Gregory, Basil not only asserted again
and again the Godhead of the Spirit, but even confirmed his statement with a solemn imprecation, ἐπαρασάμενος
ἑαυτῷ τὸ φρικωδέστατον, αὐτοῦ τοῦ πνεύματος ἐκπεσεῖν εἰ μὴ σέβοι τὸ πνεῦμα μετὰ πατρὸς καὶ ῾Υιοῦ ὡς
ὁμοούσιον καὶ ὁμότιμον.” (Greg. Naz., Or. xliii.) In Letter viii. § 11 he distinctly calls the Spirit God, as in Adv.
Eunomius, v., if the latter be genuine. In the De S. Scto. (p. 12) Basil uses the word οἰκονομία in the patristic
sense nearly equivalent to incarnation. In the passage of Bp. Lightfoot, referred to in the note on p. 7, he points
31