Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Basil and the Councils, to the Accession of Valens.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
IV.—Basil and the
Councils, to the Accession of Valens.
Up to this time St. Basil is not seen to have
publicly taken an active part in the personal theological discussions
of the age; but the ecclesiastical world was eagerly disputing while he
was working in Pontus. Aetius, the uncompromising Arian, was
openly favoured by Eudoxius of Germanicia, who had appropriated the see
of Antioch in 357. This provoked the Semiarians to hold their
council at Ancyra in 358, when the Sirmian “Blasphemy” of
357 was condemned. The Acacians were alarmed, and manœuvred
for the division of the general council which Constantius was desirous
of summoning. Then came Ariminum, Nike, and Seleucia, in 359, and
“the world groaned to find itself Arian.” Deputations
from each of the great parties were sent to a council held under the
personal presidency of Constantius at Constantinople, and to one of
these the young deacon was attached. The date of the ordination
to this grade is unknown. On the authority of Gregory of
Nyssa88
and
Philostorgius,89
it appears that
Basil accompanied his namesake of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste
to the court, and supported Basil the bishop. Philostorgius
would indeed represent the younger Basil as championing the
Semiarian cause, though with some cowardice.90
| 90 οις
Βασίλειος
ἕτερος παρῆν
συνασπίζων
διακόνων ἔτι
τάξιν ἔχων,
δυνάμει μὲν
τοῦ λέγειν
πολλῶν
προφέρων, τῷ
δὲ τῆς γνώμης
ἀθάρσει πρὸς
τοὺς κοινοὺς
ὑποστελλομένους
ἀγῶνας. This is
unlike Basil. “This may be the Arian way of saying that St.
Basil withdrew from the Seleucian deputies when they yielded to the
Acacians.” Rev. C.F.H. Johnston, De. S. Scto. Int.
xxxvi. | It may be concluded, with Maran,
that he probably stood forward stoutly for the truth, not only at
the capital itself, but also in the neighbouring cities of
Chalcedon and Heraclea.91
But his
official position was a humble one, and his part in the
discussions and amid the intrigues of the council was only too
likely to be misrepresented by those with whom he did not agree,
and even misunderstood by his own friends. In 360 Dianius
signed the creed of Ariminum, brought to Cæsarea by George of
Laodicea; and thereby Basil was so much distressed as henceforward
to shun communion with his bishop.92
He left Cæsarea and betook
himself to Nazianzus to seek consolation in the society of his
friend. But his feelings towards Dianius were always
affectionate, and he indignantly repudiated a calumnious assertion
that he had gone so far as to anathematize him. Two years
later Dianius fell sick unto death and sent for Basil, protesting
that at heart he had always been true to the Catholic creed.
Basil acceded to the appeal, and in 362 once again communicated
with his bishop and old friend.93
In the
interval between the visit to Constantinople and this
death-bed reconciliation, that form of error arose which was long
known by the name of Macedonianism, and which St. Basil was in
later years to combat with such signal success in the treatise
Of the Spirit. It combined disloyalty to the Spirit
and to the Son. But countervailing events were the
acceptance of the Homoousion by the Council of Paris,94
| 94 360. Mansi, iii.
357–9. | and the publication of Athanasius’
letters to Serapion on the divinity of the two Persons assailed.
To this period is referred the compilation by Basil of
the Moralia.95
| 95 ἠθικά. “Capita
moralia christiana, ex meris Novi Testamenti dictis contexta et
regulis lxxx. comprehensa.” Fab. Closely
connected with these are the Regulæ fusius tractatæ
(ὅροι κατὰ
πλάτος) lv., and the
Regulæ brevius tractatæ (ὅροι
κατ᾽
ἔπιτόμην)
cccxiii. (Migne, xxxi. pp. 890–1306) on which see
later. |
The brief reign of Julian would affect Basil, in
common with the whole Church, in two ways: in the relief he would
feel at the comparative toleration shewn to Catholics, and the
consequent return of orthodox bishops to their sees;96
| 96 The most important
instance being that of Athanasius, who, on his return to Alexandria
after his third exile, held a synod which condemned Macedonians as well
as Arians. cf. Newman’s Arians, v.
1. | in
the distress with which he would witness his old friend’s
attempts to ridicule and undermine the Faith. Sorrow more
personal and immediate must have been caused by the harsh treatment of
Cæsarea97
and the cruel imposts
laid on Cappadocia. What conduct on the part of the
Cæsareans may have led Gregory of Nazianzus98
to speak of Julian as justly offended, we can only
conjecture. It may have been the somewhat disorderly
proceedings in connexion with the appointment of Eusebius to succeed
Dianius. But there can be no doubt about the sufferings of
Cæsarea nor of the martyrdom of Eupsychius and Damas for their
part in the destruction of the Temple of Fortune.99
| 99 Epp. c.,
cclii. Soz. v. 11. cf. also Epp. xxxix., xl.,
and xli., with the notes on pp. 141, 142, for the argument for and
against the genuineness of the correspondence. Two Eupsychii of
Cæsarea are named in the Acta Sanctorum and by the
Petits Bollandistes,—one celebrated on April 9, said to
have been martyred in the reign of Hadrian, the other the victim of
Julian in 362, commemorated on Sept. 7. Tillemont identifies
them. Baronius thinks them distinct. J. S. Stilting
(Act. Sanct. ed. 1868) is inclined to distinguish them mainly on
the ground that between 362 and the time of Basil’s describing
the festival as an established yearly commemoration there is not
sufficient interval for the cultus to have arisen. This alone
seems hardly convincing. The local interest in the victim of
Julian’s severity would naturally be great. Becket was
murdered in 1170 and canonized in 1173, Dec. 29 being fixed for his
feast; Lewis VII. of France was among the pilgrims in 1179.
Bernadette Soubirous announced her vision at Lourdes in 1858; the
church was begun there in 1862. |
The precise part taken by Basil in the election of
Eusebius can only be conjectured. Eusebius, like Ambrose of
Milan, a layman of rank and influence, was elevated per saltum
to the episcopate. Efforts were made by Julian and by some
Christian objectors to get the appointment annulled by means of
Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus, on the ground of its having been brought
about by violence. Bishop Gregory refused to take any
retrogressive steps, and thought the scandal of accepting the
tumultuary appointment would be less than that of cancelling the
consecration. Gregory the younger presumably supported his
father, and he associates Basil with him as probable sufferers from the
imperial vengeance.100
But he was at
Nazianzus at the time of the election, and Basil is more likely to have
been an active agent.101
| 101 cf.
Greg. Naz. Ep. viii. |
To this period may be referred Basil’s
receipt of the letter from Athanasius, mentioned in Letter CCIV.,
§ 6.102
| 102 Maran,
Vit. Bas. viii. 8. | On the
accession of Jovian, in June, 363, Athanasius wrote to him asserting
the Nicene Faith, but he was greeted also by a Semiarian manifesto from
Antioch,103
of which the
first signatory was Meletius.
Valentinian and Valens, on their accession in the
following year, thus found the Church still divided on its cardinal
doctrines, and the lists were marked in which Basil was henceforward to
be a more conspicuous combatant. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
