Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/De Spiritu Sancto/Chapter 1

Chapter I.

Prefatory remarks on the need of exact investigation of the most minute portions of theology.

1.  Your desire for information, my right well-beloved and most deeply respected brother Amphilochius, I highly commend, and not less your industrious energy.  I have been exceedingly delighted at the care and watchfulness shewn in the expression of your opinion that of all the terms concerning God in every mode of speech, not one ought to be left without exact investigation.  You have turned to good account your reading of the exhortation of the Lord, “Every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth,”[1] and by your diligence in asking might, I ween, stir even the most reluctant to give you a share of what they possess.  And this in you yet further moves my admiration, that you do not, according to the manners of the most part of the men of our time, propose your questions by way of mere test, but with the honest desire to arrive at the actual truth.  There is no lack in these days of captious listeners and questioners; but to find a character desirous of information, and seeking the truth as a remedy for ignorance, is very difficult.  Just as in the hunter’s snare, or in the soldier’s ambush, the trick is generally ingeniously concealed, so it is with the inquiries of the majority of the questioners who advance arguments, not so much with the view of getting any good out of them, as in order that, in the event of their failing to elicit answers which chime in with their own desires, they may seem to have fair ground for controversy.

2.  If “To the fool on his asking for wisdom, wisdom shall be reckoned,”[2] at how high a price shall we value “the wise hearer” who is quoted by the Prophet in the same verse with “the admirable counsellor”?[3]  It is right, I ween, to hold him worthy of all approbation, and to urge him on to further progress, sharing his enthusiasm, and in all things toiling at his side as he presses onwards to perfection.  To count the terms used in theology as of primary importance, and to endeavour to trace out the hidden meaning in every phrase and in every syllable, is a characteristic wanting in those who are idle in the pursuit of true religion, but distinguishing all who get knowledge of “the mark” “of our calling;”[4] for what is set before us is, so far as is possible with human nature, to be made like unto God.  Now without knowledge there can be no making like; and knowledge is not got without lessons.  The beginning of teaching is speech, and syllables and words are parts of speech.  It follows then that to investigate syllables is not to shoot wide of the mark, nor, because the questions raised are what might seem to some insignificant, are they on that account to be held unworthy of heed.  Truth is always a quarry hard to hunt, and therefore we must look everywhere for its tracks.  The acquisition of true religion is just like that of crafts; both grow bit by bit; apprentices must despise nothing.  If a man despise the first elements as small and insignificant, he will never reach the perfection of wisdom.

Yea and Nay are but two syllables, yet there is often involved in these little words at once the best of all good things, Truth, and that beyond which wickedness cannot go, a Lie.  But why mention Yea and Nay?  Before now, a martyr bearing witness for Christ has been judged to have paid in full the claim of true religion by merely nodding his head.[5]  If, then, this be so, what term in theology is so small but that the effect of its weight in the scales according as it be rightly or wrongly used is not great?  Of the law we are told “not one jot nor one tittle shall pass away;”[6] how then could it be safe for us to leave even the least unnoticed?  The very points which you yourself have sought to have thoroughly sifted by us are at the same time both small and great.  Their use is the matter of a moment, and peradventure they are therefore made of small account; but, when we reckon the force of their meaning, they are great.  They may be likened to the mustard plant which, though it be the least of shrub-seeds, yet when properly cultivated and the forces latent in its germs unfolded, rises to its own sufficient height.

If any one laughs when he sees our subtilty, to use the Psalmist’s[7] words, about syllables, let him know that he reaps laughter’s fruitless fruit; and let us, neither giving in to men’s reproaches, nor yet vanquished by their disparagement, continue our investigation.  So far, indeed, am I from feeling ashamed of these things because they are small, that, even if I could attain to ever so minute a fraction of their dignity, I should both congratulate myself on having won high honour, and should tell my brother and fellow-investigator that no small gain had accrued to him therefrom.

While, then, I am aware that the controversy contained in little words is a very great one, in hope of the prize I do not shrink from toil, with the conviction that the discussion will both prove profitable to myself, and that my hearers will be rewarded with no small benefit.  Wherefore now with the help, if I may so say, of the Holy Spirit Himself, I will approach the exposition of the subject, and, if you will, that I may be put in the way of the discussion, I will for a moment revert to the origin of the question before us.

3.  Lately when praying with the people, and using the full doxology to God the Father in both forms, at one time “with the Son together with the Holy Ghost,” and at another “through the Son in the Holy Ghost,” I was attacked by some of those present on the ground that I was introducing novel and at the same time mutually contradictory terms.[8]  You, however, chiefly with the view of benefiting them, or, if they are wholly incurable, for the security of such as may fall in with them, have expressed the opinion that some clear instruction ought to be published concerning the force underlying the syllables employed.  I will therefore write as concisely as possible, in the endeavour to lay down some admitted principle for the discussion.


Footnotes

edit
  1. Luke xi. 10.
  2. Prov. xvii. 28, lxx.
  3. Is. iii. 3, lxx.
  4. Phil. iii. 14.
  5. i.e., confessed or denied himself a Christian.  The Benedictine Editors and their followers seem to have missed the force of the original, both grammatically and historically, in referring it to the time when St. Basil is writing; ἤδη ἐκρίθη does not mean “at the present day is judged,” but “ere now has been judged.”  And in a.d. 374 there was no persecution of Christians such as seems to be referred to, although Valens tried to crush the Catholics.
  6. Matt. v. 18.
  7. Ps. cxix. 85, lxx.  “The lawless have described subtilties for me, but not according to thy law, O Lord;” for A.V. & R.V., “The proud have digged pits for me which are not after thy law.”  The word ἀδολεσχία is used in a bad sense to mean garrulity; in a good sense, keenness, subtilty.
  8. It is impossible to convey in English the precise force of the prepositions used.  “With” represents μετά, of which the original meaning is “amid;” “together with,” σύν, of which the original meaning is “at the same time as.”  The Latin of the Benedictine edition translates the first by “cum,” and the second by “una cum.”  “Through” stands for διά, which, with the genitive, is used of the instrument; “in” for ε'ν, “in,” but also commonly used of the instrument or means.  In the well known passage in 1 Cor. viii. 6, A.V. renders δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα by “through whom are all things;” R.V., by “by whom.”